text:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
September Term, 1998
SEAN X. DUPREE
Bell, C.J.
Rodowsky
Chasanow
Raker
Wilner
Cathell,
Opinion by Raker, J.
In this case Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. During his direct testimony, the investigating detective was permitted to testify, over defense counsel's repeated objections, that after Petitioner was arrested, the detective advised him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), even though Petitioner had made no subsequent statement to the police. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner a writ of certiorari to answer the question, "If the defendant chose to remain silent when questioned by the police after his arrest, may the State elicit testimony that the police read the defendant his Miranda rights?" Our answer is in the negative. Because we conclude that the disputed testimony bore no relevance to any issue in the case and was highly prejudicial, we shall reverse.
On May 3, 1996 Hulbert Clark was returning from a local store with three friends after an afternoon of playing basketball in the neighborhood park. While walking eastbound along the 4000 block of Chesterfield Avenue in Baltimore City between six o'clock and six-thirty in the evening, Clark and his companions, Dwayne Green, William Roberts and Antoine Williams, were approached by Petitioner, Sean Dupree. Dupree exchanged greetings with the group and at some point shortly thereafter, according to Green, became engaged in "loud talking" with Clark.
Green testified that after a mutual exchange of "What's up?" with Dupree, his attention had been momentarily diverted from his friends but was drawn back by a "commotion" between Dupree and Clark. While unable to distinguish all that the two were saying, Green recalled that Dupree was saying "What's up, what's up" in a "tone of voice [that] didn't sound like a regular greeting." As Green turned back towards this commotion, he observed Dupree holding Clark in his chest area and pointing a handgun at Clark's head. Dupree pulled the trigger and shot Clark in the head. Green stated that Dupree shot Clark another two times, once as the victim was falling and again as his body hit the ground. The shooting took place less than two feet in front of Green. As Dupree turned toward Green, the latter fled to an alleyway where he remained momentarily until he was certain Dupree had left the area. Green then returned to the scene of the shooting. After seeing Clark's lifeless body and Antoine Williams kneeling down nearby in what appeared to be a state of prayer, Green ran to his house nearby "to dial 911." Green testified that at no point did he ever see Clark with a gun. Moreover, he reasoned that neither Clark's attire of sweatpants and a tee-shirt, which he had just put back over his torso only moments before the shooting, nor Clark's activity of playing basketball all afternoon would have been suitable to carrying a gun.
In his testimony, William Roberts reiterated Green's account of their returning from the local store along with Clark and Antoine Williams when Dupree approached and joined the group. Roberts further testified that he and Williams were walking ahead of the other three, with Dupree and Clark following together in the middle and Green trailing along directly behind them, when he heard three gunshots. He turned to see what had happened and observed Clark lying on the ground and Dupree running towards a nearby alley. Roberts then ran to Green's house and called Clark's mother to inform her that her son had just been shot. Roberts acknowledged on cross-examination that Dupree and Clark had been speaking to each other before the gunshots occurred but he was unable to distinguish what the two were saying. In addition, Roberts confirmed that he too had witnessed Williams kneeling down in prayer over Clark's body. Because he could not be located, Antoine Williams did not testify.
Detective Richard Petrey testified that, as the primary detective assigned to investigate the shooting death of Hulbert Clark, he responded to the scene within minutes and shortly received from a fellow officer the name of Sean Dupree as a suspect. Unable to locate Dupree at his home, the detective obtained a warrant for Dupree's arrest. On May 31, 1996 Detective Petrey had Dupree profiled on local television news programs as being wanted for murder. The next day Dupree turned himself in to the police. During Detective Petrey's direct testimony regarding his post-arrest interview of Dupree, the following occurred:
Q. And, upon meeting the Defendant what, if anything, was done by you at the time?
A. Okay. There is a - -
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I object.
THE COURT: Come on up.
During the ensuing bench conference, the following exchange took place:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He continues his constitutional right to remain silent, which just the fact that he didn't say anything is not incriminating. So, he has a constitutional right not to say anything, so I object to any line of questioning whether he said anything or didn't say anything. The truth is he didn't say anything as the State related to us.
[PROSECUTOR]: His rights were enforced.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand.
[PROSECUTOR]: All I want to do is ask him is did he explain his rights to him, did he understand them, did he proceed to make a statement.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I submit he has a constitutional right to remain silent.
[PROSECUTOR]: That's exactly what he's going to say. He didn't say anything.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Then why is it being brought up? There is no statement that is coming in. There - - it will only leave an impression with the jury that there is something wrong with him not saying something.
THE COURT: Well, you can ask him did he ask - - did he advise him of his rights according to procedure and then stop.
[PROSECUTOR): Okay.
THE COURT: He's right.
[PROSECUTOR]: Okay.
The assistant state's attorney then continued the direct examination of Detective Petrey:
Q. Detective Petrey, upon your first meeting with the Defendant did you advise him of his rights according to Police Department procedure?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Would you advise the jury what you advised the Defendant of with regard to his rights?
A. Okay.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection.
THE COURT: Go ahead, sir.
THE WITNESS: There is a Police Department form that we use. It's form, Form 69, that we use with everybody who is taken into custody and on this form their name appears, age, their educational level, their date - - I'm sorry - - the date and the time is put on to the form also. In addition to the form in the upper right hand corner I noted certain things about the Defendant such as he was left handed, that he did not require glasses, that he had no drugs or alcohol, he was on no medication, and that he could read or write.
BY [THE PROSECUTOR]:
Q. Now, when you advised him of his rights was there anyone else with you at the time other than the Defendant?
A. Yeah, that would have been Detective Hoover.
Q. And, upon advising the Defendant of his rights did you get the understanding that he understood what he was being advised of?
A. Yes, after each of the rights, number one through five, there is a small line at the rear of each right where the Defendant initials and that indicates that he does understand his rights.
During cross-examination of the detective, defense counsel pressed the point that the scene of the shooting had not been secured for a number of minutes before the first police officer arrived and therefore the area around Clark's body was subject to possible "tampering." In addition, the defense elicited from Detective Petrey that the police had not been able to locate Antoine Williams, the third eyewitness to the shooting (and the last person known to be near Clark's body before police arrived), since the summer of 1996, some nine months prior to the trial.
Dupree took the stand in his own defense and testified that he ran into the group while he was walking down the street. Dupree explained what transpired thereafter:
I spoke to them. They said what's up. I said nothing. That's when [Clark] turned, said bitch, you run up on me like that again I kill you. I said what? He said you heard me, nigger. What's up? So, he shoved his hand down his pants like so. He put his hands down, so he shoves his hand down his pants like he was going for his gun, so I grabbed mine and shot.
Dupree testified that it was this gesture by Clark and his seeing the butt of a black gun that caused him to react in panic by shooting Clark aimlessly with his own "22" that he had bought "off the street." After shooting Clark, Dupree dropped his own gun and ran. Dupree further related that all he knew about Clark was that he was from Atlanta and that because they "didn't have a relationship" Dupree "didn't know how to take him." Clark had made threats to Dupree in the past, "[l]ike nigger, you don't know where I'm from. You don't know." Hence, he took Clark's threatening gesture seriously and "reacted accordingly."
During portions of his closing argument the prosecutor addressed the jury as follows:
So, what does Sean Dupree do? Well, the little punk that he is he just runs out of there and what does he do? He don't come - - he don't run around to . . . where he lives and say mama, I've just done a terrible thing, call the cops, you know, I just killed somebody. No he runs for not one, two or three days, not even for a week or two. He stays away for four solid weeks, says he calls his mother one time in four weeks after he just killed somebody. Now, does that make any sense? Why does he stay away? Because he just killed somebody for absolutely no reason at all. Why doesn't he tell the officers I'm sorry, I had a gun, I saw a gun. Why can he not tell the officers that he had - - that Hulbert had a gun? Because Hulbert Clark did not have a gun. That's called - - that defense is called desperation and speculation. I got to think of something quick to tell these twelve people, that I was trying to defend myself.
Maybe he thinks I can get away with this. I'll stay away for a month, finally turn myself in. Why didn't he tell the cops [Hulbert Clark] had a gun? Because he didn't. Because he didn't. Hulbert did not have a gun. He wants you to believe he had a gun so he can think of this perfect or imperfect self-defense, but ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have got to call this what it is. . . . This is first degree murder. [Emphases added.]
The jury convicted Dupree of second degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol., 1998 Supp.) Article 27, §411 and §36B (d), respectively. The trial court sentenced Dupree to the Department of Corrections for a term of twenty years, the first five without the benefit of parole, on the handgun count and to a consecutive term of thirty years on the murder count. Dupree noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. That court affirmed Dupree's convictions in an unreported opinion.
Petitioner argues that Detective Petrey's testimony informing the jury that he advised Dupree of "his rights according to procedure" violated Dupree's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as his rights under Articles 22 and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The State was permitted to accomplish indirectly what it is constitutionally forbidden to do directly, that is, present to the jury evidence that Dupree remained silent after being apprised of his Miranda rights. Dupree asserts that the detective's testimony regarding his Miranda warnings, combined with the absence of any statement by the defendant thereafter, left the jury with the unmistakable impression that Dupree chose to exercise his right to remain silent, a choice that some persons commonly view as indicative of guilt. Dupree also argues that the challenged testimony, short of any constitutional infringement, was nonetheless "inadmissible under the rules of evidence in that it was plainly irrelevant to any issue in the case."
The State counters that there was no constitutional error in Petitioner's trial because "there was absolutely no mention to the jury that Dupree even exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege . . . nor was there any attempted use of this silence by the prosecution." By itself, Detective Petrey's testimony that he advised Dupree of his Miranda rights did not amount to reversible error. The State stresses that it is the particular use of post-arrest silence that must be reviewed for possible constitutional violation, not the mere mention that an arrestee was advised of his rights. Because the State did not exploit the "single reference to the fact that Dupree was advised of his 'rights,'" Dupree's conviction should be affirmed. Moreover, Dupree's contention for the first time before this Court that the prosecutor's closing remarks comprised the illicit exploitation misapprehends the State's argument. The prosecutor's summation referenced Dupree's flight from the scene and month-long absence before turning himself in to the police; in no way did it focus upon Dupree's post-arrest silence. Finally, the State does not specifically rebut Petitioner's relevancy argument but contends that "[a]ny error in admitting testimony of Dupree's 'rights' advisement was harmless."
As we embark upon our duty to resolve the question presented in this case we take note of this Court's decision in confronting a similar matter almost two decades ago. State v. Raithel, 285 Md. 478, 404 A.2d 264 (1979), presented the question "whether a trial court's use of an accused's silence at a prior suppression hearing to impeach his credibility when the defendant subsequently testifies at a second suppression hearing is permissible." Id. at 479, 404 A.2d at 264. The Court of Special Appeals had reversed Raithel's convictions for first degree murder, assault with intent to rape, and carrying a deadly weapon on the ground that the Fifth Amendment "privilege against self-incrimination prevents an accused's silence at a prior hearing from being considered in assessing his credibility." Raithel v. State, 40 Md.App. 107, 117, 388 A.2d 161, 167 (1978). This Court affirmed the intermediate court but under a different rationale. Judge Eldridge, writing for the court, stated:
[N]othing is better settled than the principle that courts should not decide constitutional issues unnecessarily. In the instant case, the Fifth Amendment issue only arises if the defendant's silence at the first suppression hearing was proper impeaching evidence as a matter of Maryland evidence law. In our view, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's silence should not have been considered by the trial court regardless of any Fifth Amendment considerations. Consequently, we resolve the question presented in this case on that non-constitutional ground, and we do not reach any of the constitutional issues dealt with by the Court of Special Appeals and the State in its argument.
Raithel, 285 Md. at 484, 404 A.2d at 267.
In the present case, the constitutional issues debated by Petitioner and the State need be resolved by this Court only if the testimony regarding Dupree's receipt of Miranda warnings was proper as a matter of Maryland evidentiary law. Under our rules of relevancy, if evidence lacks any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the defendant's guilt more probable or less probable, that evidence must be excluded. See Maryland Rules 5-401 and 5-402. It is well settled that "the admission of evidence is committed to the considerable and sound discretion of the trial court." Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 404, 697 A.2d 432, 439 (1997), and cases cited therein. See also Hunt v. State, 321 Md. 387,425, 583 A.2d 218, 236 (1990); Johnson v. State, 303 Md. 487, 527, 495 A.2d 1, 21 (1985); Durkin v. State, 284 Md. 445, 453, 397 A.2d 600, 605 (1979). The trial court's determination of relevancy will, however, be overturned on appeal for clear abuse of discretion. See Merzbacher, 346 Md. at 404-05, 697 A.2d at 439; White v. State, 324 Md. 626, 637, 598 A.2d 187, 192 (1991); Johnson, 303 Md. at 527, 495 A.2d at 21; Durkin, 284 Md. at 453, 397 A.2d at 605.
We hold that because the disputed testimony lacked the threshold relevancy necessary for admissibility, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing its presentation to the jury. It is therefore unnecessary to address the constitutionality of informing the jury of Miranda advisement where no pre-trial statement by the defendant is to be offered. We find it helpful, nevertheless, to consider similar cases, the majority of them based upon related constitutional grounds, in reasoning through and arriving at our decision in this case.
It is well established that the prosecution's use for impeachment purposes of a criminal defendant's silence at the time of arrest, after the defendant has been advised of Miranda rights, is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). It is fundamentally unfair to induce the defendant's silence by giving Miranda warnings, only then to punish the invocation of the constitutional right to remain silent by using that silence to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial. Id. at 618, 96 S.Ct. at 2245. In reaching this conclusion the Supreme Court reasoned:
Silence in the wake of [Miranda] warnings may be nothing more than the arrestee's exercise of these Miranda rights. Thus, every post-arrest silence is insolubly ambiguous because of what the State is required to advise the person arrested.
Id. at 617, 96 S.Ct. at 2244 (citing United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 177, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 2137, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975) in which the Court had ruled, under its supervisory authority over the federal courts, that the use of post-arrest, post-Miranda silence was impermissible because silence at the time of arrest is likely to be ambiguous and thus enjoys only dubious probative value).
The issue presented in the instant case is of a similar kind, yet different degree. Petitioner's central contention is that presentation to the jury of the mere advice of Miranda rights to a defendant upon arrest constitutes a violation of the rule pronounced in Doyle where no pre-trial statement by the defendant is to be admitted into evidence. There appears to be no case, state or federal, that has found a Doyle violation under such circumstances. In fact, several courts have held that the admission of testimony as to the giving of Miranda warnings, despite the defendant's exercise of the right to remain silent, does not amount to constitutional error. United States v. Whitley, 734 F.2d 1129, 1135 (6th Cir. 1984), abrogation on other grounds recognized by United States v. Robinson, 887 F.2d 651, 653 (6th Cir. 1989); United States v. Jonas, 639 F.2d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 1981); Collins v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 1984); State v. Carter, 440 S.E.2d 268, 273 (N.C. 1994).
A somewhat related conclusion is universally accepted: evidence concerning the advice of Miranda rights followed by testimony as to the defendant's waiver of those rights, and as to any inculpatory statement given thereafter by the defendant, is permissible in order to enable the jury to assess the voluntariness of the putative waiver and to accord the subsequent statement whatever weight and credibility the jury deems appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. De La Luz Gallegos, 738 F.2d 378, 381-82 (10th Cir. 1984) ("A relevant purpose for admitting testimony that a defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda is to lay a proper foundation for the admission of any statements made by a defendant thereafter" because it is the jury that must ultimately determine voluntariness of and proper weight to give to such statements.) (citations omitted)); State v. Stuckey, 680 S.W.2d 931, 938 (Mo. 1984) (no error in simply showing that Miranda warnings were given; prosecution was entitled to show defendant's statements were made voluntarily and that defendant had been clearly advised he was under no obligation to make any statement). See also United States v. Two Bulls, 577 F.2d 63, 66 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam). Cf. Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 151, 406 A.2d 415, 419 (1979) (For criminal trials, the common law of Maryland requires "that the voluntary nature of a confession be twice established before it can be utilized by the trier of fact, together with any other evidence, in determining guilt or innocence - - initially, to the satisfaction of the trial judge, out of the hearing of the jury, as a mixed question of law and fact, and then, if the statement has been placed in evidence, by a determination of the trier of fact, be it court or jury, that beyond any reasonable doubt the confession was freely and voluntarily made.") (citations omitted)).
In contrast, it is much less clear whether testimony as to Miranda warnings followed by an indirect reference to and/or comment upon the fact that the arrestee remained silent in the wake of such warnings constitutes a Doyle violation. Some courts have determined that the admission of such testimony is not error unless expressly or purposefully used by the prosecution as substantive evidence of guilt or as impeachment. See Noland v. French, 134 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that other circuits have held mere mention of defendant's exercise of Miranda rights not prohibited per se), cert. denied, U.S., 119 S.Ct. 125 (1998); United States v. Higgins, 75 F.3d 332, 333 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that not all mention at trial of Miranda warnings and defendant's response to them is forbidden; what is forbidden is use against defendant of his silence following receipt of warnings); Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir. 1995) (stating that "mere mention of a defendant's request for counsel is not per se prohibited; rather, it is the prosecutor's exploitation of a defendant's exercise of his right to silence which is prohibited."); United States v. Stubbs, 944 F.2d 828, 835 (11th Cir. 1991) (ruling that single comment on arrestee's post-arrest silence not a Doyle violation where prosecution did not "specifically and expressly attempt to use . . . the improper comment to impeach the defendant"); Lindgren v. Lane, 925 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir. 1991) (stating that "Doyle does not impose a prima facie bar against any mention whatsoever of a defendant's right to request counsel, but instead guards against the exploitation of that constitutional right by the prosecutor."); Ferreira v. Fair, 732 F.2d 245, 248 (1st Cir. 1984) (finding no constitutional error in officer's testimony that arrestee did not respond when asked whether he understood his Miranda rights in part because prosecutor did not "make use of [the defendant's] silence, either substantively or for impeachment"); McKenzie v. State, 410 N.E.2d 1308, 1310 (Ind. 1980) (ruling that officer's testimony that defendant indicated understanding of Miranda rights not improper comment on silence); Stogner v. State, 627 So.2d 815, 819-20 (Miss. 1993) (holding that trial court did not err in admitting testimony that defendant fainted after being advised of Miranda rights because "[f]ainting . . . is not the same as saying [defendant] refused to testify").1
Other courts have applied Doyle more stringently and have held that even an indirect reference to or comment upon the defendant's post-Miranda silence violates due process. See People of Territory of Guam v. Veloria, 136 F.3d 648, 651-53 (9th Cir. 1998) (plain error based on Doyle for court to admit officer's testimony that arrestee chose not to waive Miranda rights and requested legal counsel); United States v. Elkins, 774 F.2d 530, 537-38 (1st Cir. 1985) (because "Doyle violation occurs not only when the objectionable comments explicitly refer to a defendant's failure to answer questions . . . but when the reference to defendant's silence is more oblique," trial court's refusal to strike testimony that defendants showed no surprise when arrested and read Miranda rights was constitutional error); United States v. Wycoff, 545 F.2d 679, 68 1-82 (9th Cir. 1976) (testimony that defendant refused to sign Miranda rights waiver card and stated a preference to consult an attorney comprised error under Doyle, yet was ultimately harmless);2 DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 1986) (constitutional error for officer to testify that defendant advised him that "he felt like he should speak to his attorney" because the comment was "fairly susceptible of being interpreted by the jury as a comment on silence").
The preceding cases admittedly do not address the admission into evidence of Miranda warnings alone. Even so, the reasoning provided by some of these opinions, as well as others, regarding the evidentiary value of Miranda warnings in the context of a defendant's silence or statement is instructive. The Ninth Circuit has unequivocally stated
The only relevant purpose for showing that [the defendant] was advised of his rights is to lay a proper foundation for the admission of any statements given thereafter by an accused. In the present case there were absolutely no statements given to [the police] by [the defendant]. By eliciting such testimony, the government put before the jury the fact that [the defendant] remained silent and requested an attorney. The natural tendency of the use of the testimony in this manner is to prejudice the defendant by attempting to create an inference of guilt in the jury's mind.
Wycoff, 545 F.2d at 681 (emphasis added).
The Eighth Circuit per curiam has concurred in this assessment of the limited relevance of Miranda warnings, declaring that absent certain atypical situations, "the detailed conversation relating to Miranda warnings ordinarily ought not be admitted into evidence if no statement is given." Two Bulls, 577 F.2d at 66. Similarly, the Fifth Circuit has noted, "[S]ince no statements obtained as a result of any prior interviews were introduced in evidence, the Miranda requirements are not relevant." United States v. Brown, 459 F.2d 319, 322 n.2 (5th Cir. 1971) (citing Allen v. United States, 384 F.2d 926, 927 (5th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) ("We note further that the Miranda requirements would not be relevant where no evidence was introduced at the trial.")).
In another Eighth Circuit case, the court frowned upon the prosecutorial practice of eliciting testimony as to Miranda warnings where no statement had been given. While finding the practice to be non-error constitutionally, or, alternatively, harmless error under the circumstances of the case, the court opined that "it is clearly advisable that it should not be done." United States v. Brown, 584 F.2d 252, 261 (8th Cir. 1978) (harmlessness of assumed error based upon prosecution's not pursuing Miranda testimony further and not mentioning it in closing argument as well as defense counsel's declining trial court's offer to instruct jury to disregard testimony in question).
In circumstances where, rather than giving no statement, the defendant offered explanations that were "exculpatory or innocuous," the Ninth Circuit again stated forcefully the rationale for prohibiting testimony as to Miranda issues unless a subsequent inculpatory statement is to be presented to the jury:
[W]hen the defendant's subsequent statements are exculpatory or innocuous . . . voluntariness is simply not an issue. In such cases, there is nothing to indicate that the defendant's statements were involuntarily made, and the defendant does not oppose their admission into evidence. Thus, the testimony concerning the defendant's invocation of Miranda rights is not probative, although it is potentially highly prejudicial.
Unlike cases where the defendant has subsequently made inculpatory statements, in cases . . . where the defendant has made only exculpatory or innocuous statement. Miranda-related testimony will be far more prejudicial than the defendant's subsequent statements: it is the only evidence creating an inference that the defendant is guilty. As a result, the potential prejudicial impact of the Miranda-related testimony will far outweigh any possible probative value such testimony could have.
United States v. Valencia, 773 F.2d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Based upon this rationale, the court held that admission of testimony regarding the defendant's refusal to sign a Miranda-waiver form violated due process. Id. It stands to reason, a fortiori, that where the defendant has offered no statement, the prejudice inherent in the admission of Miranda-related testimony far outweighs any probative value such testimony could have: it lays ground for the double inference that the defendant invoked his right to remain silent and is therefore guilty.
Finally, Dupree's invocation of the Court of Special Appeals' decision in Zemo v. State, 101 Md.App. 303, 646 A.2d 1050 (1994) is appropriate. There the unanimous court held, "The jury, of course, has no need to know the course of an investigation unless it has some direct bearing on guilt or innocence. That an event occurs in the course of a criminal investigation does not, ipso facto, establish its relevance." Id. at 310, 646 A.2d at 1053. Here, the prosecutor's entire justification for proffering the disputed testimony was simply to show that Dupree's "rights were enforced." More specifically, the Zemo opinion's cogent assessment of the nugatory probative value of Miranda warnings, notwithstanding the court's own explicit limitations regarding its pronouncement, applies with full force to the instant case, our resolution of which purposefully avoids the constitutional inquiry undertaken by Zemo, instead relying solely upon the pertinent evidentiary considerations:
What legitimate relevance to the appellant's guilt or innocence, we ask initially, did it possibly have that he had been "read . . . Miranda?" If he had given a "Mirandized" statement that the State were offering in evidence, then, to be sure, the State might have to show its compliance with Miranda at the very threshold of admissibility. Where no statement was being offered and tested for admissibility, on the other hand, the appellant's silence in response to the Miranda warnings was immaterial. Indeed, the very giving of the Miranda warnings was immaterial. Indeed, the very fact that the appellant had even been interviewed was immaterial.
Nothing of any conceivable significance was being established by such references. What, moreover, was the possible downside? Every lawyer knows that Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect is in the throes of custodial interrogation. Every layman knows that the police give Miranda warnings to those whom they have arrested and whom they are about to question for involvement in a crime. The gratuitous reference to Miranda told the jury something about the appellant. In the world view of the laity, "good guys" don't get "Mirandized." At the very least, those who the police think are "good guys" don't get "Mirandized".
Id. at 315, 646 A.2d at 1056 (emphasis added).3
Likewise, in the instant case, the prosecution's needless insistence that the jury be informed that Dupree was "read his rights" put before the jury evidence that was immaterial to any issue in the trial. Because Dupree gave no statement to the police at the time of his arrest, the Miranda warnings were not needed by the jury to complete its appointed task. That Detective Petrey advised Dupree of his right to remain silent, which may or may not have been the catalyst of Dupree's subsequent silence, is irrelevant. Under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting such testimony. See Maryland Rules 5-401 and 5-402.
We now turn to consider whether the error committed by the trial court was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638, 350 A.2d 665 (1976). Given that error occurred in Dupree's criminal prosecution, his convictions cannot stand unless, upon our own independent review of the record, this Court is able to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error in no way influenced the verdict. Id. at 659, 350 A.2d at 678.
Once the State put before the jury the fact that Dupree had been advised of his rights yet offered no evidence of a subsequent statement by Dupree, the inference of Dupree's silence, and thus his guilt, lay dangling for the jury to grab hold. It may well be so that the jury did "take the bait." In our nation, the advice of rights upon arrest, and particularly of the right to remain silent upon arrest- -or to refuse to testify during one's criminal trial, or to "plead the Fifth"- -is widely known. Combined with this commonplace knowledge of the right to remain silent and what it signifies is the taint its invocation places on those who exercise it.
Yet the clear prejudice against Dupree derives from the State's closing remarks, however arguably subtle or possibly misinterpreted they might have been.4 Without a doubt, the prosecutor was attacking Dupree's credibility in general and his plea at trial of self-defense in particular. It may well be true that the prosecutor tried valiantly and earnestly to avoid comment on Dupree's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence and meant only to impeach his trial defense by directing the jury's attention to the month-long period between the shooting and Dupree's surrender. It was at best a risky trial tactic in light of the heavy burden the State faces should error be established. Neither unfair nor unjustified, however, is the interpretation that the State, in offering the evidence of Miranda warnings and in summing up the evidence as it did, wanted the jury both to consider and to penalize Dupree for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent upon his arrest.
Dupree's hopes of acquittal on the basis of perfect self-defense or a conviction reduced from murder to manslaughter because of imperfect self-defense hinged upon the jury's crediting his testimony. His trial defense was not a frivolous one: Green and Roberts, the two eyewitnesses who testified, were both uncertain as to the nature of the verbal and/or physical altercation between Dupree and Clark before the shooting occurred. In addition, the absence of Antoine Williams, the last person known to be near Clark's fallen body before police arrived, gave rise to the possibility that Williams had "tampered" with evidence by absconding with the gun that Dupree claimed Clark had used to threaten him before he shot in self-defense. Hence, any attack upon Dupree's credibility "struck at the jugular" of his trial testimony, United States v. Harp, 536 F.2d 601, 603 (5th Cir. 1976) (per curiam), and "went to the heart of [his] sole defense," United States v. Johnson, 558 F.2d 1225, 1230 (5th Cir. 1977). Given the circumstances of this case and the likely, if not probable, prejudice to Dupree's exculpatory explanation at trial, we cannot find the evidentiary error committed by the trial court harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED. CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE CONVICTIONS AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FOR A NEW TRIAL. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.
1In some instances the rule in Doyle may be altogether inapplicable. For instance, the Supreme Court has stated that
the fact of post-arrest silence could be used by the prosecution to contradict a defendant who testifies to an exculpatory version of events and claims to have told the police the same version upon arrest. In that situation the fact of earlier silence would not be used to impeach the exculpatory story, but rather to challenge the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest.
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619-20 n.11, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). See also Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 107 S.CT. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (holding that no Doyle violation occurred despite the fact that the prosecution opened its cross-examination of the defendant by asking, "Why didn't you tell this story to anybody when you got arrested?" Because the trial court immediately sustained defense counsel's objection, the prosecutor did not pursue the issue further nor mention it during closing argument, and the judge gave the jury two related curative instructions, the prosecution was prevented from availing itself of what Doyle forbids: the use of post-arrest, post-Miranda silence for impeachment).
2It can be argued that the Supreme Court's holding in Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987), effectively abrogated the principal holding of Wycoff, 545 F.2d 679 (9th Cir. 1976). The Ninth Circuit found a Doyle error in the admission of the disputed testimony yet held it to be harmless in part because "the trial judge admonished the jury to completely disregard the testimony" with instructions that were "prompt and forceful." Id. at 682. Under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that no Doyle violation occurred because the trial court did not permit the inquiry forbidden by the rule in that case, explicitly sustaining defense counsel's objection to the disputed testimony and later instructing the jury to disregard any questions to which an objection was sustained. Miller, 483 U.S. at 764-65, 107 S.Ct. at 3108. Even so, our reliance upon Wycoff is not with regard to its decision of constitutional law but upon its rationale as to the lack of evidentiary value of the Miranda-related testimony in that case.
3Succeeding this passage from Zemo was the following advisory footnote, relied upon by the Court of Special Appeals as the sole basis for rejecting Dupree's claims in the present case:
Our mention of the gratuitous reference to the giving of the Miranda warnings is only for the purpose of placing in fuller context the subsequent gratuitous reference to the appellant's silence in response to those warnings. We are by no means intimating that a gratuitous reference to the giving of Miranda warnings would ever, in and of itself, constitute cause for reversal. Any citation of our remarks above as authority for such a proposition would be an erroneous citation as support for a principle for which this opinion does not stand.
Zemo v. State, 101 Md.App. 303, 316 n.1, 646 A.2d 1050, 1056 n.1 (1994) (emphasis added). The intermediate court in the instant case determined that Detective Petrey's testimony amounted to no more than such a "gratuitous reference." The State's purposeful elicitation of the disputed testimony, over defense counsel's repeated objection, would seem to indicate that the reference was hardly gratuitous. More importantly, the footnote appeared in the context of addressing the possibility of a violation of the appellant's right to due process, a violation the court ultimately recognized. That the passage may lack authority for finding a constitutional error under the circumstances of the present case does not detract from its essential contention: the irrelevancy of Miranda warnings succeeded by the arrestee's silence.
4As to the arguable claim that defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's closing argument renders our consideration of the remarks beyond the appropriate scope of appellate review, we note that such an omission might be relevant were the comments being factored into the determination of error. Whereas we are now resolving the issue of possible prejudice caused by the error we have found, supra Part III, defense counsel's non-reaction does not bear the same procedural significance.


Slick and modern, the Sunprime C-Lounge is a very relaxing place to spend your holiday. The cool retro look makes this adult-only hotel one to remember, it's a great base to return to after a day out in Alanya or beyond. And when you just want to unwind, you'll find the beach outside. Located on the sand and pebble beach. 5km from Alanya's resort centre. Public bus into Alanya from outside the hotel. Minimum age 16+.
Rooms (two people) have a double bed, air conditioning, satellite television, minibar restocked daily with water, Wi-Fi, safe, hairdryer, shower room and balcony.
Also available at a supplement: Side Sea View Rooms. Sea View Rooms. Larger Rooms.


The NUMO is the new top of the range in the AGV collection. Destined for tourist and city use, it has a rich array of standard fittings which make it one of the reference models in the segment in terms of comfort, dimensions, safety and functionality. Consequently NUMO is the ideal helmet for those in search of the aesthetics and safety of a full helmet and the practicality of an open style, in a combination that can also boast leading technical innovations and Italian production.
The design of the NUMO largely reflects that of AGV's latest innovations, like HORIZON and SKYLINE. In the closed position, the perception is that of a full helmet, thanks to the streamlined chin guard perfectly integrated into the line of the shell. When the chin guard is open, the helmet is very compact, with the shortest shell/ chin guard distance in the category, which contributes to limiting the sail effect during use with the chin guard open. The lines are those typical of AGV's GT helmets, with the channels of the IVS not too evident, the narrow, streamlined chin guard and the rastremate lateral lines. Small but important are the details that further enhance the model, such as the co-moulded rubber mechanisms and buttons and the plastic parts painted in the same colour as the shell.
Visor mechanism: XQRS (Extra Quick Release System): visor removal and replacement without tools in just a few seconds.
Fastening system: strap with micrometric adjustment.


Reload this delicious body and healthy cocktail … To reach the desired weight and belly plane, a great help to be a miraculous cocktail glass in the morning, before anything else to drink or eat.
Leave prescription and easily create natural products that can reach the desired results.
wash of green goods, peeled and diced avocado. First, mix all ingredients blender then add honey and ginger , and stirred some more. This healthy, natural cocktail to drink in the morning before breakfast.
Use It Every 5 Years and Forget About Any Disease!


Whether you are a new mom or even a seasoned pro, I know how difficult it can be to choose the right bath products for your precious baby. There are so many different baby brands and each one claims to be the best for your baby's skin. It's important to make the right decision, especially when it comes to your baby's delicate skin.
Recently Cetaphil Baby asked me to review some of their baby skincare products. I was happy to do it since I have personally been a Cetaphil user for many years.
♥ Dermatologist Tested & Pediatrician Recommended. Cetaphil Baby has been tested by dermatologists and recommended by pediatricians. The brand Cetaphil also has a strong dermatological heritage of over 40 years.
♥ Uses Organic Calendula. Cetaphil Baby uses organic Calendula, derived from the Marigold flower. Calendula is known for it's healing qualities in helping to soothe & calm sensitive and irritated skin.
♥ Carefully Chosen Ingredients. Cetaphil Baby products include carefully picked ingredients such as moisturising almond oil, nourishing shea butter, soothing aloe vera, sweet almond oil and sunflower oil.
♥ Colorant Free. Cetaphil Baby products do not contain any additional dyes or colors.
Although I don't have a little baby anymore, I still feel that normal adult products are too harsh for my boys' young skin. If it is pediatrician approved for babies, then it is definitely good for my boys as well. Here are the results after testing the Cetaphil Baby products on my own kids.
The Cetaphil Baby Ultra Moisturising Bath & Wash is a pH balanced soap-free formula that contains 1/3 moisturiser with aloe vera.
• We liked the fact that the Bath & Wash also contained a moisturiser. After a day of running around in the Singapore sun, extra hydration is a must.
• The smell was mild and fresh.
• We didn't have any tears (or complaints) about stinging eyes.
• There was a nice rich lather that helped us know what areas we were cleaning.
• Skin felt soft and smooth after our shower.
Cetaphil Baby Daily Lotion blends glycerin and shea butter to moisturise and protect baby's delicate skin.
• We liked that the lotion was gentle and very lightweight. A little went a long way.
• Skin felt moisturized (no more dry patches or scaly knees).
• Not sticky and didn't leave a residue.
• Easy to hold bottle for both the boys and myself.
Use the right products. Make sure to use specially formulated baby products that are tear free and as gentle as possible.
Check water temperature. Water temperature should be warm, not hot. The ideal temperature is between 37° and 38° Celsius.
Turn the water off. Do not put baby in the bath until you turn the water off. Water temperature can change or water can get too high. Also, make sure you mix the bath water well to avoid scalding and hot spots in the bath.
Never leave baby unattended. Make sure to have one hand on your infant at all times while giving a bath. Babies can drown in less than an inch of water.
Clean the hard to reach places. Don't forget to clean gently behind the ears, inside the belly button and in between toes & fingers.
Hydrate. Immediately after a bath, many experts recommend hydrating your baby's skin with a baby lotion or moisturiser.
Keep the room warm. Babies lose body heat fast, so after the bath make sure you use a hooded towel and keep the room warm. In Singapore, you should turn off the air conditioner and/or fan prior to the bath so that the room is at a cozy temperature when your baby is finished with their bath.
Now it's time to let your clean baby shine in the spotlight! Show Singapore how your baby enjoys their bath time and stand the chance to win a professional photo shoot of your baby! Just take a picture of your baby during bath time with any Cetaphil Baby product and upload it to here.
Don't forget to hashtag – #CetaphilBabyBathSG and #CetaphilSG.
Super Photo Tip: The Cetaphil Baby range features five products for all your baby's skincare needs – for bath time choose from Cetaphil Baby Ultra Moisturising Bath & Wash, Cetaphil Baby Shampoo or Cetaphil Baby Gentle Wash & Shampoo. Then after bath use the ultra moisturising Cetaphil Baby Daily Lotion for extra moisturizing and Cetaphil Baby Ultra Sensitive Wipes for all day freshness.
Mommies & Daddies feel free to let your creative juices flow! Good luck!
Super Note: This article is brought to you in collaboration with Galderma Singapore.


text:
Home / News / India / Govt allows CPSEs to park surplus funds in debt schemes of private sector MFs
Govt allows CPSEs to park surplus funds in debt schemes of private sector MFs
1 min read . Updated: 07 Dec 2022, 07:58 PM IST Livemint
According to a central government official familiar with the matter, the debt position of the states and the weak profit-making abilities of the state-run PSUs did not make for a strong case for the CPSEs to be given to states. ( Mint)
DIPAM said the guidelines have been modified in view of the representations received from some CPSEs, mutual funds, and private sector banks suggesting changes in certain provisions
The finance ministry on Wednesday permitted public sector companies to invest their surplus funds in debt-based schemes of private sector mutual funds. This move will help them diversify their investment portfolio.
So far, Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) were allowed to invest their surplus fund in Sebi-regulated public sector mutual funds.
The Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) has issued a modified guidelines on investment of surplus funds by CPSEs wherein it said that 'Maharatna, Navratna and Miniratna CPSEs are permitted to invest in debt-based schemes of Sebi regulated mutual funds'.
DIPAM said the guidelines have been modified in view of the representations received from some CPSEs, mutual funds, and private sector banks suggesting changes in certain provisions. It was done in view with liberalisation of policies and introduction of new monetary instruments for trade in short-term funds.
These proposals have been examined by the inter-ministerial Committee for Monitoring of Capital Management and Dividend in CPSEs (CMCDC) which currently considers all capital restructuring matters of CPSEs.
Surplus funds refer to funds available with CPSEs after meeting the business requirements, including operating expenses, tax payment, working capital, debt servicing and capital expenditure.
Besides mutual funds, the guidelines permit CPSEs to invest in Treasury bills and G-Secs, term deposits in commercial banks, certificate of deposit or commercial papers issued by banks.
The original guidelines on investment of surplus funds by CPSEs were issued by the Department of Public Enterprises in May 2017. It deals with management of surplus funds to prevent it from lying idle and instead generate returns.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Jamie Dornan shares heartbreak of being trapped in Australian quarantine while dad was dying in Belfast
15 January 2022, 4:01 am
Jamie Dornan has opened up on the "worst and hardest" year of his life - losing his father to Covid while he was stuck on the other side of the world in Australian quarantine.
In March 2021, Dornan was isolating after arriving in Australia to film current BBC One hit thriller The Tourist, but with just four days to go in quarantine he received the devastating news that his father had died in Belfast.
Read more: Jamie Dornan says there were no easy moments in making The Tourist
The Fall star told The Sun: "It's been a brutal time for lots of reasons and for lots of people. We're all just trying to ride it out and come out the other side — and hope we've got our heads intact."
Jamie Dornan was isolating ahead of filming 'The Tourist'. (Two Brothers Pictures/Ian Routledge)
Dornan's father Jim, a renowned obstetrician and gynaecologist, had gone into hospital for a routine knee operation but contracted Covid, with the actor unable to get back to Belfast to be with his family because of travel restrictions.
He called 2021 "the worst year . . . and the hardest" of his life and also remembered how his father had supported him through his mother's death from cancer when he was just 16, telling him not to let it be "the thing that defines you".
Dornan said: "I've been subjected, early on in my life and now, to a lot of pain and loss."
The actor's father Jim Dornan was a renowned obstetrician. (Liam McBurney/PA Images via Getty Images)
The actor stars in Sir Kenneth Branagh's forthcoming film Belfast, where he plays a character based on Branagh's own father and his experiences during The Troubles in their home city.
Read more: Jamie Dornan says negative 50 Shades reviews drove him on
He explained his family's link to the director, telling how his father Jim had a photo in his house of himself with Branagh when the star had come to open a maternity wing at the hospital where he worked and Dornan remembered thinking it was "a big thing" as a boy.
Belfast is released in cinemas on 21 January and The Tourist continues on BBC One at 9pm on Sunday.
House in Colombia is an optical illusion that's really turning heads
TikTokers are sharing the reasons they wish they had a 'time machine'
Honey cake is the sweetest treat taking over TikTok
College student's Doritos get stuck in vending machine, so he tries to knock them loose
These shoe storage boxes are a clever way to display your sneaker collection


text:
Home / Business / The US Wire Act will go before a federal judge this month
The US Wire Act will go before a federal judge this month
By Erik Gibbs
Tags: gambling, Lawsuit, Wire Act
One would think the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would have, given the current situation, more pressing matters to attend to, but it is still carving out time to continue its long (and futile) fight to suppress states' rights. This month, a U.S. federal appeals court is going to consider the department's appeal of a lower court's decision that the Wire Act is essentially botched and covertly man-handled by certain individuals in the gaming space. The case is expected to go before the First Circuit Court of Appeals on June 18.
For those who may have been living off the grid for the past couple of years, the DOJ has flip-flopped a few times over the past decade, deciding to interpret the decades-old law differently. Originally, the idea of the legislation was to make things difficult for the mafia to run illegal sports gambling operations by making interstate money and information transfers illegal, and the DOJ reiterated the scope of the law at the beginning of 2011, only to renege a few years later, asserting that it had misinterpreted its own interpretation and the Wire Act made any type of money transfers related to gambling illegal if they included interstate activity.
The timeline and substance of the department's finicky responses have so many holes in it that an 18-wheeler could easily drive through. The assertion that the Wire Act covers any type of online gambling is preposterous, considering the DOJ has continued to allow online horse gambling. Additionally, for at least two decades, there have been online lotteries running right under the department's nose, yet it never said a word. In fact, the DOJ has said that the Wire Act would technically apply to state lotteries, but that it wouldn't enforce the law on the activity. Discriminatory enforcement of established laws is not a great way to instill confidence in a judicial system.
An appeals court already determined, in 2002, that the Wire Act was specific to sports gambling, but the DOJ decided it didn't need to follow the court's ruling and moved forward with its own agenda, which some say was bought by certain land-based casino owners trying to prevent online gambling from taking hold. New Hampshire went after the DOJ in court two years ago, and several states joined in to show their support. So far, the courts have sided with the states every step of the way, including in a decision from June of last year, which makes the latest DOJ appeal another example of its blatant misuse of resources.
There is obviously a lot at stake. If the case, New Hampshire Lottery Commission; NeoPollard Interactive LLC; Pollard Banknote Ltd. versus William Barr; Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; United States, were to swing in favor of the DOJ, the department would then have the legal authority to go after all states that are offering shared revenue programs for online gaming, could make it extremely difficult for states to launch online sports gambling and would essentially set the country back 40 years as it's trying to recover from a massive economic depression caused by the coronavirus. According to a brief filed by 18 of the 19 participating states (Pennsylvania has filed its own brief) in March, "Barr and the Department of Justice claim to recognize 'the widespread and longstanding use of lotteries by sovereign States to fund their public objectives. But their actions show that they do not comprehend what is at stake if this Court reinstates the DOJ's 2018 Opinion, Reconsidering Whether the Wire Act Applies to Non-Sports Gambling. Doing so would cause governments nationwide a catastrophic loss of revenue, precipitating the reduction or elimination of vital public services."
The luck of the Irish has Ireland at the top of global gambling spend
Germany's strict sports gambling rules pushing more to illegal sites
Texas Lt. Gov. won't give sports gambling talk the light of day
France's ANJ lays out the five key pillars to gambling regulations
The UKGC's affordability checks could cause some sports to disappear
Updating of Ukrainian Gaming Week format! UGW Expert Conference will be held in February, and large-scale Ukrainian Gaming Week gambling exhibition to take place in March


text:
Los deportes paralímpicos abarcan un amplio rango de deportes para personas con discapacidad que participan en competiciones deportivas a distintos niveles. En el contexto de los Juegos Paralímpicos de Verano y de Invierno, se refiere a las actividades deportivas de alto nivel organizadas como parte del Movimiento Paralímpico mundial. Estos deportes se organizan y se desarrollan bajo la supervisión del Comité Paralímpico Internacional y otras federaciones deportivas internacionales.

Los Juegos Paralímpicos son el máximo exponente de los Deportes Paralímpicos y constituyen un importante evento multideportivo internacional para atletas con discapacidades físicas. En este sentido se incluyen a deportistas con discapacidad motriz, amputaciones, ceguera y parálisis cerebral.

Organización
El Comité Paralímpico Internacional (CPI) está reconocido a nivel global como la organización que lidera el Movimiento Paralímpico. Ejerce el gobierno directo de nueve deportes y es responsable de los Juegos Paralímpicos y otros eventos deportivos dirigidos a atletas con dispacidad. Otras organizaciones internacionales como la Federación Internacional de Deportes en Silla de Ruedas y de Amputados (IWAS), la Federación Internacional de Deportes para Ciegos (IBSA), la  Federación Internacional de Deportes para Personas con Discapacidad Intelectual (INAS) y la Asociación Internacional de Deportes de Paralíticos Cerebrales (CP-ISRA) gobiernan algunos deportes específicos para determinados grupos de discapacidad.

Además, algunas federaciones internacionales deportivas se hacen cargo de las disciplinas dirigidas a las personas con discapacidad, ya sea formando parte de la federación del deporte convencional en cuestión como la Federación Ecuestre Internacional (FEI), o a través de federaciones específicas como la Federación Internacional de Baloncesto en Silla de Ruedas (IWBF).

Categorías de discapacidad

Los atletas que participan en los Juegos Paralímpicos están agrupados en diez categorías, que se basan en diferentes tipos de discapacidad:

Discapacidad física
Hay ocho tipos de limitaciones físicas reconocidas por el Comité Paralímpico Internacional:
 Limitaciones en la potencia muscular: Las alteraciones en esta categoría tienen en común que la función motora se ve reducida por la contracción de un músculo o grupo de músculos (por ejemplo, los músculos de una extremidad, de una parte del cuerpo o de la mitad inferior del mismo). En esta categoría están incluidos los deportistas que sufren paraplejía y cuadriplejía, distrofia muscular, los efectos de la poliomielitis y espina bífida.
 Alteración de la gama pasiva de movimiento: Reducción sistemática del rango de movimiento de una o más articulaciones. Los trastornos agudos como la artritis no están incluidos.
 Amputación o deficiencia en una o varias extremidades: Amputación total o parcial de los huesos o de las articulaciones debido a una enfermedad, traumatismo, o deficiencia congénita de extremidad.
 Diferencia en la longitud de las piernas: acortamiento óseo significativo producido en una pierna debido a una deficiencia congénita o traumatismo.
 Estatura baja: altura reducida como consecuencia de piernas más cortas de lo habitual, brazos y tronco. Esta limitación tiene su origen en un déficit músculo-esquelético de las estructuras de hueso o cartílago.
 Hipertrofia muscular: aumento anormal de la tensión muscular y disminución de la capacidad de un músculo para estirar. La hipertrofia muscular se puede generar por una lesión, una enfermedad o por condicionantes que involucran el daño al sistema nervioso central (por ejemplo, la parálisis cerebral).
 Ataxia: es un impedimento que consiste en una falta de coordinación de los movimientos musculares (por ejemplo, la parálisis cerebral o la ataxia de Friedreich).
 Atetosis: se caracteriza por movimientos involuntarios, desequilibrados y una dificultad para mantener una postura simétrica (por ejemplo, la parálisis cerebral o la coreoatetosis).

Discapacidad visual
Los atletas con discapacidad visual van desde quienes tienen una visión parcial, suficiente para ser juzgados legalmente como invidentes, hasta quienes sufren una ceguera total. De esta manera se incluye la alteración de uno o más componentes del sistema visual (estructura del ojo, receptores, vía el nervio óptico, y la corteza visual). Los guías visuales para atletas con deficiencia visual son una parte tan íntima y esencial de la competición que el atleta con discapacidad visual y el guía se consideran un equipo. A partir del año 2012, estos guías (junto con los porteros visuales en Fútbol 5 pueden recibir medallas como propias.

Discapacidad intelectual
Se incluyen a los deportistas con un deterioro significativo en el funcionamiento intelectual y limitaciones asociadas con la conducta adaptativa. El CPI se centra principalmente en los atletas con discapacidades físicas, pero el grupo de discapacitados intelectuales se ha añadido en algunas ediciones de los Juegos Paralímpicos. Únicamente pueden participar los atletas de élite con discapacidad intelectual diagnosticados antes de los 18 años. Cabe destacar que los Juegos Olímpicos Especiales Internacionales, reconocidas por el COI, están abiertos a todas las personas con discapacidad intelectual.

La clasificación de discapacidades determina qué atletas compiten entre sí. Algunos deportes están abiertos a varias categorías de discapacidad, como el ciclismo, mientras que otras especialidades están restringidas a una categoría, como el Fútbol 5. En algunos deportes compiten deportistas de diferentes categorías, pero solo contra adversarios de su misma categoría de discapacidad (por ejemplo, en atletismo). Por su parte, en otras disciplinas se enfrentan atletas de diferentes categorías, como en natación. Habitualmente, los eventos en los Juegos Paralímpicos son nombrados con la categoría de la discapacidad relevante a la que pertenecen.

Clasificación
Para asegurar que la competición sea justa y equilibrada, todos los deportes paralímpicos tienen un sistema de clasificación a través del cual se garantiza que la victoria de un deportista depende de la habilidad, aptitud, potencia, resistencia, capacidad táctica y concentración mental del mismo, al igual que sucede en los deportes para personas sin discapacidades.

El propósito de la clasificación de los atletas es reducir al mínimo el impacto de las deficiencias en la disciplina deportiva. De esta manera, tener una discapacidad no es suficiente y se debe probar el impacto de la misma en la práctica deportiva. Los criterios de agrupación de los atletas por el grado de limitación para afrontar la actividad deportiva se denominan "Clases deportivas". A través de la clasificación, se determina qué atletas son aptos para competir en un determinado deporte y cómo se agrupan para la competición.

Juegos Paralímpico de Verano

Juegos Paralímpico de Invierno

Véase también
 Juegos paralímpicos
 Deportes olímpicos

Referencias

Enlaces externos
 Página oficial del Comité Paralímpico Internacional .
 Página oficial del Asociación Internacional de Deportes de Paralíticos Cerebrales .
 Página oficial  de la Federación Internacional de Deportes para Ciegos .
 Página oficial de la Federación Internacional de Deportes para Personas con Discapacidad Intelectual .

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The Kangol Squad Fully Fashioned Pull On Cap- This Kangol pull on knit cap is thickly ribbed and warm for the coldest days. A longer ribbed cuff allows you to wear it cuffed or pulled down for a slouchier look, and the crown is fully finished in a knit sailor style. 100% acrylic, warm and soft, this is a great Winter cap for outdoor work, sports, and fun. Double sided Kangol label tab on the cuff.


text:
Rock Charity Game On Friday, March 13th
Register Now To Participate In The Game Worn Jersey Auction
Oakville, ON – The Toronto Rock are pleased to once again partner with Smilezone Foundation for this year's charity game on Friday, March 13 at 7:30 p.m. at Scotiabank Arena when the Rock takes on the Buffalo Bandits on Indigenous Heritage Night.
Funds raised from this year's charity game will go towards new Smilezones at the Gané Yohs Community Health Centre in Ohsweken, ON. The partnership between Smilezone and the Toronto Rock, assists Smilezone with the transformation of these spaces within different facilities into magical scenes of adventure, fun and intrigue to help alleviate anxiety and uplift the spirits of clients during their appointments.
Fans will have several different ways they can contribute to the fundraising efforts including participating in the live game worn jersey auction that will take place on the turf at Scotiabank Arena immediately following the game. The design for this year's charity night jerseys came together after a unique collaborative effort that saw Rock staff working alongside well-known designer Tracey Anthony of Six Nations. The jerseys will be unveiled next week.
To participate in the live game worn jersey auction, fans must either register in advance at torontorock.com/auction or at the game on March 13 prior to halftime.
Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment will once again donate $1 for every ticket sold to the fundraising total. You will also want to arrive early to get your hands on one of the wildly popular mystery autographed balls featuring the likes of Nick Rose, Challen Rogers, Tom Schreiber, Rob Hellyer, Adam Jones and more. Fans that unwrap a specially marked mystery ball will have the chance to win additional prizes but the biggest win of all will be supporting Smilezone Foundation. Additionally, fans can purchase a raffle ticket for the game-worn signed helmet raffle.
As a part of Indigenous Heritage Night, Six Nations of the Grand River chief Mark Hill will perform the land acknowledgement prior to the game. Rock supporters from Shawanaga First Nation, located north of Parry Sound, ON, will form the Fan Tunnel to welcome the Rock players on to the floor during pre-game player introductions. Youth from the Six Nations Minor Lacrosse Association will also suit up and take to the turf to participate in a halftime scrimmage. On the concourse, fans will be able to learn about the history and what goes into the crafting of a wooden lacrosse stick from stick maker Daniel Bo Henhawk.
Smilezone Foundation is a registered charity committed to "putting smiles on children's faces". The charity, founded by Adam Graves and Scott Bachly in 2012, established the overarching mission of assisting children and their families, who are facing difficult times and health challenges. Smilezone's mission is to create, build and transform areas ("Zones") in hospitals, private treatment and development centres, and children's clinics, in order to improve the lives of children facing illness, disabilities, and physical and emotional obstacles—ultimately putting a smile on their faces. Visit smilezone.com for more information.
For more information on Toronto Rock tickets, please contact a Toronto Rock account executive at 416-596-3075 or visit torontorock.com.


text:
Home Analysis With these inpatient anticoagulation guidelines, reducing costs was just the beginning
With these inpatient anticoagulation guidelines, reducing costs was just the beginning
Published in the December 2004 issue of Today's Hospitalist
Low-molecular-weight heparin costs more than unfractionated heparin, but can it be safer "and ultimately less expensive "than more traditional anticoagulants in the acute care setting? Recent research uncovered data that may not only help answer that question, but provide some insight into how physicians can better prescribe drugs known for troublesome side effects.
To get a handle on how different types of anticoagulants affect both costs and adverse events, researchers examined prescribing patterns before and after hospitals implemented guidelines to help physicians choose the most appropriate anticoagulant for their inpatients. The bottom line? After implementing the guidelines, hospitals saw their overall costs for treating these patients drop.
While that result was significant, it was only the beginning. Researchers found that when physicians followed the guidelines, which are based on well-established evidence about how to prescribe anticoagulants, there were other major changes. Physicians changed not only the types of anticoagulants they prescribed, but the types of patients to whom they gave the drugs.
Concerns about risk, costs
The project began when a group of pharmacists was asked to examine how anticoagulation therapy guidelines could help reduce costs and adverse events like bleeding for initial use of anticoagulants in the acute care setting. Mercy Resource Management Inc., a group purchasing organization that at the time included about 100 Catholic hospitals, was interested in the topic for several reasons, according to the study's lead author, Glen T. Schumock, PharmD, MBA, director of the Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research at the College of Pharmacy at the University of Illinois in Chicago.
One pressing concern, he explains, was the number of adverse reactions associated with anticoagulants. "You have a number of possible adverse effects," Dr. Schumock says, "including bleeding and recurrent thromboembolism, especially with warfarin and heparin."
Cost was another consideration. At the time the study began in the late 1990s, low-molecular-weight heparin accounted for a huge portion of the purchasing group's pharmacy budget.
Finally, researchers felt that there was some confusion among physicians about exactly which type of anticoagulant to prescribe for individual patients. Because each of the three low-molecular-weight heparins then on the market had been approved for very specific indications, researchers worried there was confusion among physicians about exactly when to prescribe each. Further complicating matters, Dr. Schumock explains, was the fact that each of the low-molecular-weight heparins required different dosing regimens.
To help sort through all of these concerns, the purchasing group asked the researchers to answer a basic question: Are low-molecular-weight heparins worth their additional expense when compared to unfractionated heparin, particularly when you consider the costs of monitoring patients and treating adverse effects?
Complex decision-making
Researchers started the process by surveying the community hospitals that were part of the purchasing group. While most of the hospitals said they didn't have any prescribing guidelines for anticoagulants, most said they would implement the guidelines if the purchasing group shouldered the work of creating them.
Dr. Schumock says that at the time, there was relatively little in the way of guidelines for physicians. While groups like the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Heart Association had released guidelines for the use of anticoagulants for particular patient populations, he explains, the guidelines did not provide specific recommendations on dose or length of therapy.
Because prescribing anticoagulants in the inpatient setting requires a fairly complex decision-making process, researchers decided to give physicians a fair amount of information in the guidelines. The guidelines, for example, compare the overall costs of prescribing different drugs on a scale of one to three. With intravenous heparin, the guidelines factor in the costs of the pump to administer the drug and the costs of monitoring the patient.
The guidelines also compared the convenience of different therapies on a scale of one to three. A once-a-day drug, for example, received a higher score in terms of convenience than a therapy that must be taken more often.
Same indication, different patients
While the guidelines were sent to all of the 100 or so hospitals that belonged to the purchasing group, researchers examined their impact on a much smaller group of 15 facilities.
Researchers found that more anticoagulants were prescribed appropriately after the new guidelines were implemented (86.9 percent) than before (59.8 percent). That told them that physicians at the 15 hospitals that had modified their prescribing patterns to follow the guidelines' advice.
Dr. Schumock says that before the guidelines were implemented, researchers had identified several common problems. Physicians often didn't prescribe a high enough dose of a certain anticoagulant, for example, or they weren't prescribing the correct number of doses in a given day (they were prescribing Q8 instead of Q12).
But the guidelines clearly influenced more than just physicians' choice of dosages. Dr. Schumock says that in hospitals that took part in the study, researchers found that physicians began prescribing more low-molecular-weight heparin than unfractionated heparin.
While the guidelines called for prophylaxis before general surgery, for example, they urge physicians to avoid using heparin in the highest risk patients. They instead suggest prescribing low molecular-weight heparins to these patients.
After the guidelines had been implemented, more patients received enoxaparin or dalteparin subcutaneously every 24 hours. Fewer patients received heparin subcutaneously every 12 hours. Dr. Schumock says this change occurred primarily among patients being treated prophylactically after surgery or during an acute illness.
Before the guidelines were implemented, anticoagulation was most commonly used for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis/ pulmonary embolism and treatment of acute coronary syndrome. While that remained the No. 1 indication for anticoagulation after the guidelines were implemented, researchers found that physicians had started giving anticoagulants to a slightly different group of patients.
After the guidelines were implemented, physicians were writing more orders for prophylaxis in medically ill patients and individuals who had suffered trauma. Fewer orders, by comparison, were written for prophylaxis in patients about to undergo general surgery.
Adverse events and costs
Those changes had a clear effect on both adverse events and overall costs. Before the guidelines, hospitals in the study had documented 22 adverse events such as bleeding or recurrent thromboembolism. After the guidelines were implemented, that number dropped to 14. (See "Inpatient anticoagulant guidelines and the effects on adverse events," below for more information.)
Overall, Dr. Schumock says, the risk ratio of hospitals in the study dropped to 0.64. While that number was not statistically significant, he thinks it depicts an encouraging trend.
"You can say there was a definite trend toward fewer adverse events," Dr. Schumock acknowledges, "but our population was small. If we had treated more patients, we would have clearly seen statistically significant results."
Dr. Schumock says that in large part because of that drop in adverse events, hospitals participating in the study saw their costs of caring for patients on anticoagulants drop. "When you look at the costs of adverse events compared to the costs of the drugs," he explains, "the drug costs are rather insignificant."
The research included the costs of treating an adverse event like bleeding or recurrent thromboembolism and factored those costs into the equation. Overall hospital costs came in at $194,965 before the guidelines. Afterwards, hospitals spent $145,119, for a savings of just under $50,000 for a group of 264 patients.
While the numbers may be impressive, the study questions how it will be received by hospitals. The paper notes that because hospital budgets are "compartmentalized," pharmacy directors may feel pressure to hold down the budget for drugs "even if that means that overall hospital costs are higher.
While that may be the case, the purchasing group has decided that the model was a success, and it has begun applying it to other drugs. Researchers have already completed a project examining the use of IV proton pump inhibitors, and another team is completing research examining a new treatment for acute decompensated heart failure in the ER.
Gauging covid's impact on teamwork
How ready are APPs for hospital medicine practice?


If you're someone who has to shave on a daily basis, then you know how frustrating it can be to deal with a subpar trimmer, especially if your hair grows in fairly quickly. Some trimmers are only designed to handle stubble, while others are only suited to give you a full, clean shave. If you are someone who likes to alternate between being completely shaved or simply wants the ability to trim and groom your beard, then the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer has everything that you want in a pair of trimmers.
Whether you want to trim your moustache, goatee, stubble, or simply want to shave it all off, the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer can easily do all of that for you. The razors on it are of the highest quality, but they are also combined with a twistable trimmer that allows you to style your facial hair just the way you want it. And it is also fully capable of working while it is wet, which means you can save time by shaving in the shower!
What truly makes the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer unique is that it comes with a click and lock system that allows you to determine how much hair you want it to shave off. This essentially makes it a full-performance grooming tool, which means it can be used in a number of different fashions. You won't have to worry about missing hair in hard to shave spots or having an uneven beard, as the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer allows you to be as precise as you want when shaving.
Along with having multiple shaving functions, the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer has a number of smaller features that truly make it an excellent piece of technology. It is fully washable, which means you can easily take it apart and wash out any facial hair that is left inside after you use it. It is also cordless, which means you can shave in the shower or take it with you on business trips. It can be fully charged in as little as one hour and if you are in a hurry, it only takes five minutes until it can be used for one full shave!
It also comes with a beard trimming attachment that has four different settings, which means men with even the thickest of beards can use this to trim and shave! Perhaps the only downside to the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer is that it is a little on the expensive side. But, considering that it has an amazing 3-in-1 functionality and will last for several years, you can easily consider that money well spent.
There are several types of men's beard styles and each of them requires a different set of tools. Regardless of whether you just want to grow a classic goatee or simply want to trim your stubble, the Braun CruZer 3-in-1 Trimmer can provide you with everything you'll need when it comes to facial grooming!


text:
Pasaria (niem. Passarien) – kolonia w Polsce położona w województwie warmińsko-mazurskim, w powiecie bartoszyckim, w gminie Bartoszyce. Miejscowość wchodzi w skład sołectwa Węgoryty. W latach 1975–1998 miejscowość administracyjnie należała do województwa olsztyńskiego.

W 1889 r. był to majątek ziemski o powierzchni 112 ha. W 1983 był to przysiółek, administracyjnie należącym do PGR Lusiny.

Przypisy

Bibliografia
 Bartoszyce. Z dziejów miasta i okolic. Wyd. drugie zmienione. Wyd. Pojezierze, Olsztyn 1987, 480 str.,

Bartoszyce (gmina wiejska)


One of the world's rarest and most threatened plants has been brought back from the dead. The Belgium grass has been given the 'kiss of life' thanks to joint work by Kew's seed bank at Wakehurst Place, in West Sussex, and the National Botanic Garden of Belgium.
It is over 70 years since the plant was seen in its native habitat. Now fresh, green shoots are emerging in both Britain and Belgium from recently discovered seeds which had been stored away.
"This is a good example of how modern seed banking is a vital tool for conservation, and can complement work to conserve plants where they grow in the wild", says Simon Linington, head of curation at Kew's Millennium Seed Bank.
In a plea for help, and for fear of putting all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, the Belgians called on their European conservation partners at Kew for help when they found the forgotten packets of seed in their collection.
"It was clear that I was probably looking at the last few seeds of this species in existence, and so some of the seeds were dispatched to Britain so that both institutes could try to germinate them", says English botanist Dave Aplin from the National Botanic Garden of Belgium.
This is one of the first successes of the recently formed conservation network across Europe funded by the EU.
ENSCONET is a partnership of 18 institutes from a dozen countries in Europe which have joined forces to protect the continent?s most endangered species. Working together they can reduce duplication and improve data collection and management. This will be to the advantage of the many plants, such as Bromus bromoideus, facing extinction. 50% of Europe's endemic species are in danger of extinction.
Bromus bromoideus is one of the most threatened plants on the planet. Of the total amount of seeds discovered in the Belgium bank under a quarter were viable, so time was running out fast for this species.
The grass, formerly common in old-style hayfields around Liège and Rochefort south of Brussels, is thought to have declined dramatically from the early 1900s due to changes in farming practices.
One of Britain's own bromes has also had a torrid time, and Kew stepped in to help here too. Seed from the Millennium Seed Bank was used last summer (August 2004) in Oxfordshire in an effort to introduce this species back to the wild. Bromus interruptus grew successfully, flowered and produced sufficient seed this year to allow some to be sent back to the seed bank as a safeguard. The seed, which fell naturally, should germinate this autumn and help promote the resurgence of this once popular UK wild grass.


text:
Mobile App Practice Test for Your Big Exam
We Guarantee You'll Pass, or Your Money Back
Find Your Exam
What is an Emergency Medical Technician's Salary?
OK, so you think you may have found your passion in life – becoming an emergency medical technician.
However, the million-dollar question is…
How much will I earn per year as an EMT or paramedic?
We will share more information on emergency medical technician salaries with you, but there are some other things to consider first:
Is being an emergency medical technician a growing or a dying career?
How are the employment prospects for EMTs and paramedics?
And where is the best place to live and get paid as an EMT?
Keep reading and, hopefully, we can answer some of these questions for you.
What kind of salary can I expect?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage for an emergency medical technician was $33,380 in May 2017. By the term "median wage," we mean that half the workers in the occupation earned more than this. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $21,880, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $56,990.
What are the highest paying states for emergency medical technicians?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are the 5 highest paying states. Numbers are based on the mean.
Washington – $33.16 per hour / $68,970 per year
District of Columbia – $27.94 per hour / $58,110 per year
Alaska – $23.28 per hour / $48,420 per year
Connecticut – $22.99 per hour / $47,810 per year
Maryland – $22.12 per hour / $46,010 per year
What are the lowest paying states for emergency medical technicians?
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are the 5 lowest paying states. Numbers are based on the mean.
West Virginia – $13.62 per hour / $28,320 per year
Alabama – $14.29 per hour / $29,720 per year
Kansas – $14.34 per hour / $29,820 per year
Arkansas – $14.35 per hour / $29,850 per year
South Dakota – $14.46 per hour / $30,080 per year
What is the career ranking for this job?
Well, according to usnews.com, becoming an emergency medical technician is exceptionally fulfilling. They analyze a boatload of data about salary, unemployment rate, and stress to select the top jobs for each year.
Emergency medical technicians are ranked:
#23 in Best Health Care Support Jobs
What is the growth potential as an emergency medical technician?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the typical job growth in a sector is 7%. Emergency medical technician job growth between 2016 and 2026 is expected to be 15%, adding 37,400 new jobs. That is much faster than average.
What are the unemployment figures like for emergency medical technicians?
When looking at a career to get into, it is a good idea to factor in data on how long you can stay employed. Emergency medical technicians have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the US. According to usnews.com, the unemployment rate for emergency medical technicians is only 1.9%.
The bottom line: Becoming an emergency medical technician is not just a rewarding career; it is a growing and lucrative one, too.
Emergency/EMS
What is a Physician's or a Surgeon's Salary?
What is a Physician or a Surgeon?
Six Questions to Ask Yourself When Picking a Career as a Physician or a Surgeon
7 Best Strategies for Passing the MCAT
The Steps to Becoming a Physician or a Surgeon and Taking the MCAT
Golden Egg Publishing
4440 PGA Blvd, Suite 600
Email: info@goldeneggapps.com
Live Chat: Click Here
About Our Practice Test
Our practice tests are curated by professionals, assuring you high-quality questions. We guarantee you'll pass your exam studying with our apps, or your money back.
Copyright 2018 Golden Egg Publishing LLC
Privacy Notice | Home


Does anyone recall the story where zombies were repurposed into cuddle objects?
I'm 99% sure it was here on the Drabblecast and involved a swimming pool filled with them, but can't find it.
That sounds like B Sides episode 13, "Snuggle the Dead".
That's absolutely it, thank you very much!
That was one of the oddest episode to listen to. The artwork didn't do it justice. A wiggling mass.... guhahhhhh! Nice.


text:
Artisan Partners > Artisan Canvas
Artisan Canvas
Your reply has been posted successfully!
The Importance of Profit Growth in Equity Returns
Growth Team
There is frequent debate among market participants about which style factors will be in favor in the future: growth, value, momentum, active, passive, etc. While we do not possess the ability to pinpoint the timing of when one style may be in favor over another, we believe the key element in determining the future path of a share price over the duration of an economic cycle is highly dependent on knowing which way profits are headed.
Trade Uncertainty on the Rise
The likelihood of a second trade deal this year with China appears to have materially faded—if it's not off the table altogether. President Trump recently relayed he isn't currently focused on a phase-two deal. To be fair, a phase-two deal may have already been dead in the water for 2020, given the next round of negotiations was intended to aim at some of the bigger bones of contention between the US and China. Then, too, Beijing officials have long stated their preference for a wait-and-see approach to ongoing negotiations—pending the US's November election outcome. But now, it seems an even longer-term delay is possible—with potentially significant global ramifications.
There's A New Question About Inflation
The Consumer Price Index (CPI), which has declined for three straight months and is up just 0.1% over the past year, paints a picture of stagnant inflation. But ask any pit master about meat prices this summer, and they'll point to some noticeable price surges. Meanwhile, gasoline has seldom been cheaper. Of course, any summer travel plans were probably canceled due to the pandemic. And that's not necessarily a trivial point—because, while headline inflation numbers always mask some important facts about what's happening with prices in the components, the pandemic's rapid effects on consumption patterns may be altering some of these nuances in more fundamental ways.
Brexit: The UK Decides Not to Let It Linger
In June, Brexit hit a rather inauspicious milestone, marking the four-year anniversary of the vote to split from the European Union but with little to show for it practically: While the UK has separated in spirit, it remains economically linked to the EU. However, with the UK Cabinet Office confirming that EU trade talks would not extend through next year, the breakup now has a firm date. What remains less clear is how trade will flow between the two regions moving forward.
Enjoying the read? Get the latest insights delivered straight to your inbox.
Credit Team (1)
Growth Team (9)
Global Equity Team (3)
Sustainable Emerging Markets Team (5)
Bryan Krug (11)
Editorial Staff (67)
Thomas Reynolds IV (4)
US Value Team (2)
Daniel Kane (1)
Antero Peak Group (1)
Eric Colson (9)
Rezo Kanovich (6)
Maria Negrete-Gruson (4)
Daniel O'Keefe (3)
Mark Yockey (1)
David Samra (1)
Christopher Smith (5)
Jason White (1)
Global Equity
U.S. Value
International Value
Global Value
Sustainable Emerging Markets
Antero Peak Group
The material contained on Artisan Canvas represents the views and opinions of the authors. Material written by any particular individual may or may not reflect the views and opinions of Artisan Partners or its associates. The material contained on this site may contain forward-looking statements regarding future events and future performance, as well as management's current expectations, beliefs, plans, estimates, or projections. Forward-looking statements regarding Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. and its subsidiaries are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including those factors described within "Risk Factors" in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC on February 18, 2020, as such factors may be updated from time to time. The views and opinions expressed in this material are based on market conditions as of the date indicated and are subject to change without notice. While this information is believed to be reliable, there is no guarantee to the accuracy or completeness of any statement in the discussion.
This website does not constitute an offer or recommendation by Artisan Partners of securities or services to, or a solicitation by Artisan Partners of an offer of services or to buy, sell or hold securities. Artisan Partners and the authors noted herein may have financial interests, through investment vehicles or personal investments, in any themes, trends, companies or securities discussed. Materials on this website are informational only and should not be taken as investment recommendation or advice of any kind whatsoever (whether impartial or otherwise). Investing is subject to risks, which include the potential for fluctuations in investment value and loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
MSCI makes no express or implied warranties or representations and shall have no liability whatsoever with respect to any MSCI data contained herein. The MSCI data may not be further redistributed or used to create indices or financial products. This report is not approved or produced by MSCI. Frank Russell Company ("Russell") is the source and owner of the trademarks, service marks and copyrights related to the Russell Indexes. Russell® is a trademark of Frank Russell Company. Neither Russell nor its licensors accept any liability for any errors or omissions in the Russell Indexes and/or Russell ratings or underlying data and no party may rely on any Russell Indexes and/or Russell ratings and/or underlying data contained in this communication. No further distribution of Russell Data is permitted without Russell's express written consent. Russell does not promote, sponsor or endorse the content of this communication. The herein referenced S&P index(es) ("Index") is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC ("S&P DJI") and/or its affiliates and has been licensed for use. Copyright © 2022 S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, a division of S&P Global, Inc. All rights reserved. Redistribution or reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without written permission of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P® is a registered trademark of S&P Global and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC ("Dow Jones"). None of S&P DJI, Dow Jones, their affiliates or third party licensors make any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the ability of any index to accurately represent the asset class or market sector that it purports to represent and none shall have any liability for any errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index or the data included therein. Source ICE Data Indices, LLC, used with permission. ICE Data Indices, LLC permits use of the ICE BofAML indices and related data on an "as is" basis, makes no warranties regarding same, does not guarantee the suitability, quality, accuracy, timeliness and/or completeness of the ICE BofAML indices or any data included in, related to, or derived therefrom, assumes no liability in connection with the use of the foregoing, and does not sponsor, endorse, or recommend Artisan Partners or any of its products or services.
© 2022 Artisan Partners. All rights reserved.


You are looking for an affordable bus ticket for a journey from Grantham to Portsmouth? Then you've come to the right place! By using our search engine, you will always find the ideal bus. But pay attention to the details: ticket prices can vary from day to day. For instance, coach fares might be a bit more expensive in times of unusually high demand, such as during school holidays or just before a bank holiday. Never forget A little research certainly pays off!
At the moment, we don't have coaches from Portsmouth to Grantham. In the following list, you can find the cheapest coach routes near Portsmouth and Grantham as well as alternative means of transport.
If you want to go away but don't know how, we would highly recommend checking the bus timetables. Taking the bus is not only an ecofriendly option, it's also quite inexpensive and as comfortable and convenient as taking a train or plane. In recent years, coach providers have really gone the extra mile by offering top-notch on-board features ranging from USB ports over entertainment centres to a free WiFi connection. On CheckMyBus you can easily find out which companies offer which services. Also make sure to check the individual luggage policies: Most companies operating the route Grantham - Portsmouth allow you to take carry-on baggage and one normal size suitcase on board at no extra cost. Additional or oversize luggage can usually be added for some extra pounds. Do you have all the information you need for a successful trip from Portsmouth to Grantham? Take a look at the exact location of the bus stations in both cities, check departure times and find the best ride. One last piece of advice: Browse our website for current discounts. After all, everyone likes a good bargain, right?
A taxi journey in Grantham is 2% cheaper than in Portsmouth.
A bus fare in Grantham is 32% cheaper than in Portsmouth.
A pint of beer in Grantham is 15% cheaper than in Portsmouth.
A bottle of water in Grantham is 36% more expensive than in Portsmouth.
A meal in Grantham is 49% more expensive than in Portsmouth.


Good afternoon! I'm back with a quick post today to show you some of my post-it note holders that I made for a recent craft fair. I got the design idea from Victoria Rogers at Blue Jelly Stampin and I used the Sunshine and Sprinkles designer series papers which are just so colourful and jolly!
I'll post some more of my craft fair projects soon!


What is contemporary painting? Do today's artist paint portraits, landscapes or still lives? Is contemporary art only surreal, abstract or is it figurative? The Long Beach Museum of Art has invited fourteen artists from diverse artistic backgrounds to answer these questions. The exhibition Masterworks: Defining A New Narrative consists of fourteen large-scale paintings by accomplished artists that, for the last decade or more, have been constantly exploring new narrative directions in contemporary painting.
The artists have been given the task of providing a singular work that could be considered pivotal in their careers. Decisive is thereby the amount of time and consideration they invested as well as the skills utilized. Artist featured are Esao Andrews, Sean Cheetham, Natalia Fabia, Alex Gross, James Jean, Josh Keyes, Mario Martinez, Greg Simkins, Nicola Verlato, Eric White, Aron Wiesenfeld, Martin Wittfooth, and curating artist and book author Nathan Spoor as well as co-curator Jeff McMillan.
The artists featured in Masterworks are from diverse backgrounds and their work connects a broad spectrum of genres, scenes and movements. Masterworks calls into question what a decade means to an artist, and summarizes the thoughts, theories, and personalities of each painter into one distinct moment. Within each work, the artists' individual perspective is explored through childhood fantasies, everyday objects, and sensational dreamscapes. Each painting represents a decade of dedication to artistic excellence and creative expertise and signifies the product of a career's worth of experience into one masterwork. The paintings in Masterworks drift between fantasy and reality while closely examining and disrupting conventional pictorial environments.
Coinciding with the exhibition is a beautifully designed, 240-page linen hardbound book published by the Museum and Gingko Press. Curator and Author Nathan Spoor has compiled an exceptional volume to accompany the exhibition, which features never before published interviews, artwork and photographs of the artists in their studios. The exhibition opened to the public on Thursday, October 23 and will run through February 1st 2015.