text:
492 F. 2d 943 - United States v. Oliver
Federal Reporter, Second Series
492 F.2d.
492 F2d 943 United States v. Oliver
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
Joseph Armand OLIVER, Appellant.
No. 73-1283.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 17, 1973.
Decided Feb. 25, 1974, Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Denied March 27, 1974.
W. H. Bates, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
William Kitchen, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and EISELE,* District judge.
LAY, Circuit Judge.
Defendant was found guilty of kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. 1201. The victim of the alleged kidnapping testified that on November 16, 1972, while walking near her school dormitory in Kansas City, Missouri, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the defendant forced her into a car and drove to a secluded place where he raped her. The FBI confirmed that fibers similar to those within the carpet in the defendant's car were found on the girl's underclothing.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction is not challenged on appeal. The sole error alleged is the exclusion by the district court of testimony of three witnesses offered by the defendant Oliver to show the prosecuting witness' poor reputation for truth and veracity.1
The defense rested its entire case on the credibility of the prosecutrix. She testified that on the evening in question, she left the dormitory, after school curfew hours, to go to a nearby shopping area. She related that the defendant stopped his car at a lighted intersection in a residential area and asked her for directions to a restaurant. While she was pointing toward Main Street, she said the defendant got out of the car and forced her into the car on the driver's side. On cross-examination she denied that she had gotten into the car voluntarily. She originally said that the time interval which elapsed from when he first asked her directions to when he forced her into the car was three minutes. On redirect examination she changed this to six seconds. She admitted visiting with the defendant in his car about her family, the fact that she had lived with her father, an Air Force officer, overseas, and that she was thinking of getting a job at the telephone company. She said she did this to calm the defendant. Defendant's counsel asked her about other details of conversation relating to her going back to Nebraska to get her car, quitting school, moving out of the dormitory, etc., but she denied she had told him those things. She described how she was abducted when the defendant forcibly grabbed her with one hand behind the neck and pushed her into the car. She admitted she had originally told the FBI that he had grabbed her by both arms. She testified that when the defendant grabbed her she did not say anything to him and was too afraid to scream. She admitted she had told the FBI that she had screamed at the defendant and asked to be let go. She said the defendant at all times had held her firmly around the neck and drove her a long distance to the secluded area where she was raped. The path the car traveled was through busy intersections and streets with stop lights, but she said the defendant drove recklessly and never stopped his car at any time. After the car stopped she said defendant continued to hold her forcibly around the neck with one hand, pulled her blue jeans and pants just below her knees and raped her. She said she struggled throughout. After the rape, she testified that on the way back she got out of the car when defendant stopped at a stop sign and she went to a private home. A Mr. Hartley came to the door. She first called her boy friend and then Mr. Hartley called the police. Hartley did not testify, but his wife, who was upstaris when the girl came to the door, testified. She said she heard the girl crying, saying she had been raped. She said the girl was composed and not hysterical. The police came and took her to the University of Kansas Medical Center. Dr. Brandwine, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, examined her. He found two small red rings on both arms, but no evidence of any bruises on any part of her body. There was no trace of blood nor any evidence of trauma on her lower pelvic area. There was no evidence of marks or trauma about the neck area. She had no torn clothing.
The only witnesses offered by the defense were the complaining witness' former roommates. Two of the three girls still lived with her on November 16, 1972, the date of the alleged rape. None of the witnesses had known the complaining witness prior to the start of school in September, 1972. Defense counsel, out of the presence of the jury, conducted a voir dire examination of the three witnesses. After the offer of proof, the trial court ruled that none of the witnesses was qualified to testify as to the prosecutrix' reputation for truth and veracity in the community for the following reasons:
(1) The reputation about which they sought to testify was not in the community in which she lived, but rather was her reputation in the dormitory. (2) The witnesses had only known her for approximately seven weeks. (3) The testimony regarding community reputation consisted in large part of the personal opinions of the witnesses.
The trial judge allowed them to testify only as to the prosecutrix' tendency to bruise easily. They each testified that the prosecutrix had previously told them that she bruised easily. She had earlier denied this. The girls had previously seen black and blue marks on her when she had had minor bumps. She had told them she took vitamins plus iron because of her condition.
We find the court erred in excluding their testimony as to the prosecutrix' reputation for truth and veracity and require a new trial.
The rationale for limiting reputation testimony to the 'community in which he lives' is to restrict evidence of repute to reputation among the people who know the person best. McCormick, Evidence 44 at 92 (2d ed. 1972).
However, this rule must be applied in a realistic and practical manner. Professor McCormick observes:
But as an exclusive limitation it would not be appropriate in this country today, where a person may be little known in the suburb or city neighborhood where he lives, but well known in another locality where he spends his working days or in several localities where he does business from time to time. Thus, today it is generally agreed that proof may be made not only of the reputation of the witness where he lives, but also of his repute, as long as it is 'general' and established, in any substantial community of people among whom he is well known, such as the group with whom he works, does business or goes to school.
McCormick, Evidence 44 at 92-93 (2d ed. 1972).
Professor Wigmore echoes this understanding:
But in the conditions of life today, especially in large cities, a man may have one reputation in the suburb of his residence and another in the office or the factory at his place of work; or he may have one reputation in his place of technical domicile in New York and another in the region of the mines of Michigan or the steel-mills of Ohio where his investments call him for supervision for portions of time. There may be distinct circles of persons, each circle having no relation to the other, and yet each having a reputation based on constant and intimate personal observation of the man.
There is every reason why the law should recognize this. Time has produced new conditions for reputations. The traditional requirement about 'neighborhood' reputation was appropriate to the conditions of the time; but it should not be taken as imposing arbitrary limitations not appropriate in other times. 'Alia tempora, alii mores.' What the law, then as now, desired was a trustworthy reputation; if that is to be found among a circle of persons other than the circle of dwellers about a sleeping-place, it should be received.
5 Wigmore, Evidence 1616 at 488 (3d ed. 1940).
In accordance with this reasoning, courts have readily extended the concept of community to include the community in which one works, as well as where one lives. See, e.g., United States v. Parker, 447 F.2d 826 (7th Cir. 1971); State v. Jackson, 373 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.1963); People v. Cobb, 45 Cal.2d 158, 287 P.2d 752 (1955) (en banc); People v. Kronk, 326 Mich. 744, 40 N.W.2d 788 (1950). Cf. United States v. Salazar, 425 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir. 1970).
In People v. Colantone, 243 N.Y. 134, 152 N.E. 700 (1926), the New York Court of Appeals held that an instructor and other students at defendant's school should have been allowed to testify as to his reputation. The court noted:
The only place where he can make a reputation, good or bad, is among his associates in his particular activities or in the personal contacts of his life where he actually lives it. * * *
We think that the Appellate Division was right in ruling that to confine the evidence of the defendant's reputation in this case merely to the place where he resided was too limited an application of the rule of good character evidence, and that the testimony offered should have been received.
Id. at 702.
We conclude that those persons who have had daily contact with the complaining witness, even though it was for a short period of two months, are competent to testify as to her general reputation at the time.2 The fact that the witnesses had known her for a short period of time does not by itself render their testimony inadmissible. This factor goes to the weight of the evidence and is for the jury to evaluate. Cases finding character witnesses incompetent to testify relate to lack of foundation for reasons other than short periods of acquaintance.3
The third reason the district court gave for exclusion of the testimony of the three character witnesses related to its concern that the three girls were giving their personal opinions as to the truth and veracity of the complainant rather than testimony reflecting her community reputation.
We agree that much of the voir dire examination, conducted outside the presence of the jury, reflected improper interrogation and answer. Defense counsel, undoubtedly straining to lay foundation, went beyond his intended proof. Specific incidents may only be inquired into on cross-examination of a witness testifying as to character for truthfulness. See Proposed Rules or Evidence, Rule 608(b), 51 F.R.D. 315, 389 (1971). Nevertheless, we think it manifest that the defendant made clear the purpose of calling the witnesses and that a sufficient foundation was laid for them to testify as to the complainant's reputation for truth and veracity in the community in which she lived. Once foundation was demonstrated, the court should have made clear to both counsel and the witnesses the limited extent to which the questions and answers would be restricted on direct examination.
We recognize the wide latitude generally accorded the trial judge in determining the admissibility of evidence. However, as we have set forth, these witnesses were qualified to testify as to the prosecutrix' reputation for truth and veracity. This was not a question of relevancy resting in the trial court's discretion. The evidence was rejected here because the trial court erred in its holding as to what constituted a proper foundation. The totality of the defense offered here rested on challenging the credibility of the complaining witness. The jury deliberated over ten hours before rendering the guilty verdict. Questions of credibility are peculiarly within the province of the jury. This being so, it is critical that all material evidence relating to truth and veracity be admitted for the jury's consideration.
The issue before us is whether the exclusion of such testimony amounted to prejudicial error. See Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 480, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948); Panger v. Duluth, W. & P. Ry., 490 F.2d 1112 (8th Cir. 1974). We find it did. On the record before us, it is impossible to say that there is no 'reasonable possibility' that the exclusion of the evidence might not have contributed to the conviction. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963). On the record, the evidence of guilt as to the kidnapping was not so 'overwhelming' as to render harmless the exclusion of the testimony. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).
As noted in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 66 S.Ct. 1239 (1946), the fact that this is a criminal case is significant:
The appellate court (cannot) escape altogether taking account of the outcome . . .. In criminal causes that outcome is conviction. This is different, or may be, from guilt in fact. It is guilt in law, established by the judgment of laymen. And the question is, not were they right in their judgment, regardless of the error or its effect upon the verdict. It is rather what effect the error had or reasonably may be taken to have had upon the jury's decision.
Kotteakos, supra at 764, 66 S.Ct. at 1247.
Recently this court affirmed its adherence to the Kotteakos standard of determining prejudicial error:
'If, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand * * *. But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. The inquiry cannot be merely whether there was enough to support the result, apart from the phase affected by the error. It is rather, even so, whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave doubt, the conviction cannot stand.'
United States v. Stabler, 490 F.2d 345 (8th Cir. 1974), quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 (1946).
Applying this standard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we cannot say that the exclusion of the testimony of the complaining witness' three roommates as to her reputation for truth and veracity was harmless. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge (concurring).
I concur completely with Judge Lay's views. I add my individual comments solely to emphasize that the excluded testimony would have cast serious doubt on the prosecuting witness' version of events and might well have led to the defendant's acquittal.
Under the indictment in this case, the Government's obligation was to prove that the defendant knowingly transported in interstate commerce a person who had been 'unlawfully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnapped, abducted, or carried away and held for ransom or reward or otherwise.' 18 U.S.C. 1201. On the record in this case, the victim's testimony relating to forcible abduction is entirely uncorroborated and somewhat suspect.1 Without doubt, its weaknesses would have been highlighted for the jury by the proffered evidence, had it been admitted.
At the close of the prosecution's case, the defense produced three witnesses who had been the roommates of the victim at the time in question.2 The trial court was extremely dubious about the admissibility of their testimony and, therefore, insisted upon hearing a voir dire examination of the witnesses outside the presence of the jury as an offer of proof before allowing them to testify. In addition to testimony about the victim's propensity to bruise easily-- which was eventually admitted-- and about the victim's reputation for truth and veracity-- which has now been discussed at length in Judge Lay's opinion3 -- the witnesses were prepared to testify to the following:
1) That the victim claimed on an earlier occasion in Kansas City that she had been raped by a young man, and then on further questioning by her roommate later retracted the statement;
2) That, on a number of occasions, the victim had gone out to beer-bars with her roommates, but later was 'picked up' by various men who were strangers to the group;
3) That the victim stayed out late at night, after hours as stipulated by school regulations, and on some occasions, all night; and
4) That, on the day following the alleged kidnap-rape, the victim displayed no signs of being upset and indeed went out to a bar and 'went home with another guy' that night.4
Whether the proffered testimony on these latter four points was admissible as relevant to the issue of consent as a defense to the charge of kidnapping or as extrinsic impeachment evidence contradicting statements on collateral matters made by the prosecuting witness are difficult questions which we are not called upon to answer, since the appellant does not raise them as error. But the very existence of this testimony encourages us to look more closely at the exclusion of the testimony relating to the victim's reputation for truth and veracity.
In reviewing the record in this case, I am left with the distinct feeling that the trial judge improperly restricted the defendant's opportunity to present an adequate defense to the charge of kidnapping. I recognize that the exclusion of the proffered testimony relating to the victim's reputation for truth and veracity stemmed from the trial court's concern to shield the prosecuting witness from a collateral assault upon her integrity. Yet the defendant too must be considered.
The prosecutor's proof that the defendant had kidnapped the victim rested upon her unsupported testimony, and the defendant was entitled to contest her reliability. Since the trial court deprived him of that opportunity, reversal is clearly merited.
G. THOMAS EISELE, District Judge, Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation
Defendant alleges additional error in the district court's refusal to allow him to submit voluntarily to a polygraph examination at his own expense. Defendant's counsel urges that he was denied the opportunity to lay the predicate for an attempt to convince the district court that the status of the art and acience of polygraph examinations had progressed to the point where results of such examinations should be admitted into evidence. In view of our reversal on other grounds it is unnecessary to pass on the question presented. Presumably counsel can renew his motion on remand before the second trial. We simply note that no prejudice to the government can flow from allowing the defendant the opportunity to at least attempt to lay a foundation for the admissibility of a polygraph test at trial. Although this court has in the past held such tests inadmissible, we note recent court decisions have found under certain circumstances a polygraph examination may be admissible. See, e.g., United States v. Ridling, 350 F.Supp. 90 (E.D.Mich.1972); United States v. Zeiger, 350 F.Supp. 685 (D.D.C.1972); cf. United States v. Wainwright, 413 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1009, 90 S.Ct. 566, 24 L.Ed.2d 501 (1970)
Uniform Rules of Evidence, Rule 63(28) refers to 'the community in which he then resided or in a group with which he then habitually associated.' Proposed Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(21), 51 F.R.D. 315, 422 (1971), admits evidence of reputation 'among his associates or in the community.'
For example, in United States v. Trollinger, 415 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1969), the character witness had known the defendant one month, but had not lived in either of the cities in which the defendant had recently resided and to which inquiry was directed. See also United States v. Straughan, 453 F.2d 422 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Salazar, 425 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir. 1970)
According to her own testimony, the victim did not try to exit the car at any time until after the sexual act occurred, although the car repeatedly slowed for automatic traffic signals. She admits that she engaged in what appears to have been a casual conversation with the driver about her parents, her school, and other topics. Although she had told her roommates on several occasions that she bruised easily, the examining physician found her neck unmarked despite her claim that the defendant gripped her by the neck during the entire trip which started in Kansas City, Missouri, and terminated in Prairie Village, Kansas
Because of the trial court's insistence that the evidence be concluded that evening-- although the defense did not even begin its case until after 5:00 P.M.-- defense counsel agreed that he would rely upon the testimony of these three witnesses and forego the testimony of a fourth roommate who would have been available the next morning
Typical of the reputation testimony proffered was that of one former roommate who testified in part:
Q Are you acquainted with the reputation for truth and veracity of Jalaine McQuay in the community and with the people with whom she was living on November 16, 1972, and shortly thereafter, and prior thereto, for several weeks?
A During that time, I would say that everybody that lived with her, in both dorms, would feel the same way I do, that nobody could believe anything she said. People didn't even listen to her any more. They didn't even want to talk to her.
Q Are you acquainted with her reputation for truth and veracity, then?
A Yes.
Q And what was that reputation?
A Not very good.
Another witness under cross-examination by the prosecutor explained regarding the victim:
At first she had us all pretty snowballed that she was the sweet innocent type. But later on it appeared that she had been lying to all of us. She would tell us one thing and run upstairs and tell some more girls another thing, and she came back that was lying about us and about everybody else.
In this connection, one witness observed: 'any girl who is raped just doesn't go home with another guy the very next night.' She contrasted the victim's calm reaction to the alleged rape with an earlier incident when the victim went into near-hysterics when some boys had tried to break into the girls' apartment


text:
Escrito por William Winterbotham
N addition to what we have already written of the discovery and
settlement of North America, we shall give a brief history of the kate war with Great Britain, with a sketch of the events which preceded and prepared the way for the revolution. This general view of the history of the United States will serve as a suitable introduction to the particular histories of the several states, which will be given in their proper places.
America was originally peopled by uncivilized nations, which lived mostly by hunting and fishing. The Europeans, who first visited these fhores, treating the natives as wild beasts of the forest, which have no property in the woods where they roam, planted the standard of their respective masters where they first landed, and in their names claimed the country by right of discovery.
Henry the Seventh of England granted to John Cabot and his three fons a commission, " to navigate all parts of the ocean for the purpose of discovering iflands, countries, regions, or provinces, either of Gentiles or Infidels, which have been hitherto unknown to all Christian people, with
up his standard, and to take possession of the fame as vaffals of the crown of England." By virtue of this commillion, in 1498,
power to set
Sebastian Cabot explored and took poffeffion of a great part of the North American continent, in the name and on behalf of the king of England.
The country thus discovered by Cabot, was possessed by numerous tribes or nations of people. As these had been till then unknown to all other princes or states, they could not possibly have owed their allegiance or subjection to any foreign power on earth; they must have therefore been independent communities, and as such, capable of acquiring territorial property, in the same wanner as other nations. Of the various principles on which a right to foil has been founded, there is none superior to immemorial occupancy. From what time the Aborigines of America had refided therein, or from what place they migrated thither, were questions of doubtful solution, but it was certain that they had long been sole occupants of the country. In this state no European prince could derive a title to the soil from discovery, because that can give a right only to lands and things which either have never been owned or poffeffed, or which, after being owned or poffefled, have been voluntarily deserted. The right of the Indian nations to the soil in their possession was founded in nature. It was the free and liberal gift of heaven to them, and such as no foreigner could rightfully annul. The blinded superstition of the times regarded the Deity as the partial God of Christians, and not as the common father of saints and favages. The pervading influence of philosophy, reason, and truth, has,fince that period, given us better notions of the rights of mankind, and of the obligations of morality. These unquestionably are not confined to particular modes of faith, but extend universally to Jews and Gen. tiles, to Christians and Infidels.
Unfounded, however, as the claims of European Sovereigns to American territories were, they severally proceeded to act upon them. By tacit consent they adopted as a new law of nations, that the countries which each explored Mould be the absolute property of the discoverere While they thus fported with the rights of unofferding nations, they could not agree in their respective shares of the common spoil. The Portuguese and Spaniards, inflamed by the same spirit of national aggrandizement, contended for the exclusive sovereignty of what Columbus had explored. Animated by the rancour of commercial jealoufy, the Dutch and Portuguese fought for the Brazils. Contrary to her genuine interests, England commenced a war in order that her contraband traders on the Mexican coaft, claimed by the king of Spain, might no longer be searched. No farther back than the middle of the
present century, a contest concerning boundaries of American territory belonging to neither, occasioned a long and bloody war between France and England.
Though Queen Elizabeth and James the First denied the authority of the Pope of Rome to give away the country of infidels, yet they so far adopted the fanciful distinction between the rights of Heathens and the rights of Christians, as to make it the foundation of their respective grants. They freely gave away what did not belong to them with no other proviso, than that's the territories and districts so granted, be not previously occupied and possessed by the subjects of any other Christian prince or state." The first English patent which was given for the purpose of colonizing the country discovered by the Cabots, was granted by Queen Elizabeth to Sir Humphry Gilbert, in 1578, but this proved abortive. In 1584, she licenced Walter Raleigh, " to search for Heathen lands not inhabited by Christian people," and granted to him in fee all the soil " within two hundred leagues of the places where his people should make their dwellings and abidings." Under his auspices an inconfiderable colony took possession of a part of the American coaft, which now forms North-Carolina. In honour of the Virgin Queen his sovereign, he gave to the whole country the name of Virginia. These first settlers, and several others who followed them, were either de. troyed by the natives, removed by fucceeding navigators, or died without leaving any behind to tell their melancholy story, for they were never more heard of. No permanent settlement was effected till the reign of James the First.
In the course of little more than a century, was the English NorthAmerican continent peopled and parcelled out into distinct governments. Little did the wisdom of the two preceding centuries foresee the consequences both good and evil, that were to result to the old world from discovering and colonizing the new. When we consider the im menfe foods of gold and silver which have flowed from it into Europe, the subsequent increase of industry and population, the prodigious extenfion of commerce, 'manufactures, and navigation, and the influence of the whole on manners and arts, we see such an accumulation of good, as leads us to rank Columbus among the greatest benefactors of the human race : but when we view the injustice done the natives, the extirpation of many of their numerous nations, whose names are no more heard ;– The havoc made among the first settlers ; – The slavery of the Africans, to which America has furnished the temptation ; and the many long and bloody wars which it has occafioned, we behold such a crowd
of woes, as excites an apprehension, that the evil has outweighed the good.
In vain do we look among ancient nations for examples of colonies established on principles of policy, fimilar to those of the colonies of Great Britain. England did not, like the republics of Greece, oblige her sons to form diftant communities in the wiles of the earth. Like Rome she did not give lands as a gratuity to soldiers, who became a military force for the defence of her frontiers. She did not, like Car. thage, subdue the neighbouring states, in order to acquire an exclufive right to their commerce. No conquest was ever attempted over the Aborigines of America. Their right to the soil was disregarded, and their country looked upon as walte, which was open to the occupancy and use of other nations. It was considered that settlements might be there formed for the advantage of those who should migrate thither, as well as of the Mother Country. The rights and interests of the native proprietors were, all this time, deemed of no account.
What was the extent of obligations by which colonies planted under these circumstances were bound to the Mother Country, is a subject of nice discussion. Whether these arose from nature and the conftitution, or from compact, is a question necessarily connected with many others. While the friends of Union contended that the king of England had a property in the soil of America, by virtue of a righe derived from prior discovery: and that his subjects, by migrating from one part of his dominions to another, did not leffen their obligations to obey the fupreme power of the nation, it was inferred, that the emigrants to English America continued to owe the same obedience to the king and parliament, as if they had never quitted the land of their nativity. But if as others contended, the Indians were the only lawful proprietors of the country in which their Creator had placed them, and they fold their right to emigrants who, as men, had a right to leave their native country, and as subjects, had obtained chartered permission to do so, it follows from these premises, that the obligations of the colonifts to their parent state must have resulted more from compact, and the prospect of reciprocal advantage, than from natural obligation. The latter opinions seem to have been adopted by several of the colonists, particularly in New England. Sundry persons of influence in that country always held, that birth was no necessary cause of subjection, for that the subject of any prince or state had a natural right to remove to any other state or quarter of the globe, especially if deprived of liberty of conscience, and that, upon such removal, his subjection ceased.
The validity of charters about which the emigrants to America were universally anxious, reits upon the same foundation. If the right of the sovereigns of England to the soil of America was ideal, and contrary to natural justice, and if no one can give what is not his own, their charters were on several accounts a nullity. In the eye of reason and philosophy, they could give no right to American territory. The only validity which such grants could have, was, that the grantees had from their sovereign a permission to depart from their native country, and negociate with the proprietors for the purchase of the soil, and thereupon to acquire a power of jurisdiction subject to his crown. These were the opinions of many of the settlers in New-England. They looked upon their charters as a voluntary compact between their sovereign and themselves, by which they were bound neither to be fubject to, nor seek protection from any other prince, nor to make any laws repugnant to those of England : but did not consider them as inferring an obligation of obedience to a parliament, in which they were unrepresented. The prospects of advantage which the emigrants to America expected from the protection of their native sovereign, and the prospect of aggrandisement which their native sovereign expected from the extenfion of his empire, made the former very solicitous for charters, and the latter very ready to grant them. Neither reasoned clearly on their nature, nor well underitood their extent.
In less than eight years one thousand five hundred miles of the sea coast were granted away, and so little did they who gave, or they who accepted of charters, understand their own transactions, that in several cases the same ground was covered by contradictory grants, and with an absurdity that can only be palliated by the ignorance of the parties, some of the grants exended to the South Sea, over a country whose breadth is yet unknown, and which to this day is unexplored.
Ideal as these charters were, they answered a temporary purpose. The Colonists reposed confidence in them, and were excited to industry on their credit. They also deterred European powers from disturbing them, because, agreeable to the late law of nations, relative to the appropriation of newly discovered Heathen countries, they inferred the protection of the sovereign who gave them. They also opposed a barrier to open and gross encroachments of the mother country on the rights of the colonists; a particular detail of these is not now necessary. Some general remarks may, nevertheless, be made on the early periods of colonial history, as they cast light on the late revolution. Long before the declaration of independence, several of the colonies on different occasions declared, that they ought not to be taxed but by their own provincial affemblies, and that they confidered subjection to acts of a British Par
liament,

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Moreover, these effects depend on an individual's social status,
Moreover, these effects depend on an individual's social status, which suggests that there is intraspecific variation in the way that androgens AC220 molecular weight affect marking behaviour on short timescales. This study fills a gap in our understanding about the plasticity of rapid androgenic effects on behaviour, and how these responses can influence adaptive reproductive tactics. (C) 2014 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved."
"Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a histopathologically and molecularly heterogeneous disease with the chromophobe subtype (chRCC) accounting for approximately 5% of all cases. The median overall survival of advanced RCC has improved significantly since the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) DNA Damage inhibitor inhibitors. However, high-quality evidence for the use of new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced chRCC is lacking. Few published case reports have highlighted the use
of temsirolimus in chRCC.\n\nCase presentation: Here, we report the case of a 36-year-old Caucasian woman with metastatic chRCC with predominantly skeletal metastases who was refractory to sunitinib who demonstrated a durable clinical response to temsirolimus lasting 20 months. We review the available evidence pertaining to the use of new generation molecularly targeted agents, in particular mTOR inhibitors in chRCC and discuss their emerging role in the management of this disease which would aid the oncologists faced with the challenge of treating this rare type of RCC.\n\nConclusion: Conducting randomised clinical trials in this rarer sub-group of patients would be challenging and our case report and the evidence reviewed would guide the physicians to make informed decision regarding the management of these patients."
"This study evaluated the effect of five methods of solvent volatilization on the degree of conversion (DC) of nine one-bottle adhesive systems using Fourier transform infrared/attenuated total reflectance (FTIR/ATR)
analysis. Nine adhesives were tested: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), Adper Easy One (EO), One Up Bond F Plus (OUP), One Coat Bond SL (OC), XP Bond (RP), Ambar (AM), Natural Bond (NB), GO, and Stae. The adhesive systems MEK inhibitor were applied to a zinc-selenide pellet and 1) cured without solvent volatilization, 2) left undisturbed for 10 seconds before curing, 3) left undisturbed for 60 seconds before curing, 4) air-dried with an air stream for 10 seconds before curing, and 5) air-dried with an air stream for 60 seconds before curing. FTIR/ATR spectra were obtained, and the DC was calculated by comparing the aliphatic bonds/reference peaks before and after light activation for 10 seconds (FlashLite 1401). The DC means of each material were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test (p<0.05).


text:
cuisine_data = []
CSV.foreach ("db/data/cuisine.csv") do |row|
  cuisine_data << row
end
data = cuisine_data.flatten
paired = data.each_slice(2)
paired.each do |p|
  if @country = Country.find_by(name: p[0])
  	@country.update(cuisine: p[1])
  end
end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Eksempler med tilsvarende betydning A utility infielder.
Eksempler med tilsvarende betydning The cost of utilities never decreases.
All the utilities were lost after the hurricane.
Eksempler med tilsvarende betydning A computer system provides utility programs to perform the tasks needed by most users.
Eksempler med tilsvarende betydning The price of the house included all utilities.


text:
HomePoetsProfile of Dr. Raymond Wilson
Profile of Dr. Raymond Wilson
Dr. Raymond Wilson is a well-known author who has written five books, including Ohiyesa: Charles Eastman, Santee Sioux. He is the editor of Natives Americans in the Twentieth Century and Indian Lives: Essays on Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Native American Leaders. Dr. Wilson has published over 50 essays, articles, or chapters in books, encyclopedias, and dictionaries and has published over 15 articles in professional journals. Additionally, he has more than 185 book reviews in scholarly journals and many presentations at scholarly conferences.
Dr. Wilson is Professor of History and former chair of the Department of History at Hays University, Kansas. He received the fourth President's Distinguished Scholar Award. He joined the faculty in 1979. Dr. Wilson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Fort Lewis College, a Master of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico. A native of New Kensington, Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson, and his wife, call Hays home.
He is a member of several professional organizations and has been accorded numerous honors and awards. In 2002, he received the Fort Hays State University Pilot Award for outstanding teaching and is listed in the International Directory of Distinguished Leadership and in Who's Reference Encyclopedia of the American Indian.
Source: https://literaryglobe.poetry.blog/poems-2/humour/twos-company/
Analysis of the Poem Two's Company by Raymond Wilson


A Lovely Intervention uses play and gift-giving to encourage positive change for clients of Wandsworth Probation Service. A pioneering new method for rehabilitation, it will continue in development through 2018-19.
The impact is designed bespoke for the client as an individual, but will also impact recipients of gifts, the non-recipients of crimes, and networks of family and friends for social cohesion in that community.
Representing Coney are: Tassos Stevens, Astrid Breel, Becki Haines and others, in collaboration with Barbara Cala-Lesina of Wandsworth Probation Services.
The collaboration between Tassos and Barbara was brokered and developed through Agents Of Creative Change, produced by Battersea Arts Centre.
A Lovely Intervention is supported by Wandsworth Grant Fund.
Coney is participating in Prosper, a business support programme from Creative United. Prosper is designed to improve confidence and capabilities within business in the arts, museums and galleries. The programme is working with 70 businesses to help increase the resilience and investment across the sector.


text:
Falkland Islands: -60.859904, -59.346584
Greenland: 86.410216, -46.820732
Saint Pierre and Miquelon: 53.179321, -56.315918
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha Islands: -16.173658, -5.705634
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha Islands: -7.968039, -14.367176
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha Islands: -40.015238, -12.276832
The Atlantic Ocean is the world's second largest ocean, following the Pacific Ocean. With a total area of about 106,400,000 square kilometres (41,100,000 sq mi), it covers approximately 20 percent of the Earth's surface and about 29 percent of its water surface area. The first part of its name refers to Atlas of Greek mythology, making the Atlantic the "Sea of Atlas".
The Atlantic Ocean occupies an elongated, S-shaped basin extending longitudinally between Eurasia and Africa to the east, and the Americas to the west. As one component of the interconnected global ocean, it is connected in the north to the Arctic Ocean, to the Pacific Ocean in the southwest, the Indian Ocean in the southeast, and the Southern Ocean in the south (other definitions describe the Atlantic as extending southward to Antarctica). The equator subdivides it into the North Atlantic Ocean and South Atlantic Ocean.
OCTs details
Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha Islands


As I talk to many of my fellow designers, I get the sense that we all feel like we have a case of Imposter Syndrome.
Even though some may be high achievers and well accomplished, we live with a subtle but persistent fear that we will be exposed as a fraud.
The design field is often full of subjectivity; there's no real life test you can take to say, "See? I'm a good designer. I got a 96% on this exam." Furthermore, people's perception of what "good design" is changes over time.
Despite the ambiguity, I've observed an evolution of my design ability and process. I call these the three stages of being a designer. I'm confident that any aspiring designer who follows this evolution will grow and also be able to hush that nagging Imposter Syndrome feeling.
Before you can start designing like a boss, you have to know what makes a particular design jive. many people can recognize good design, but they can't necessarily explain what makes it good design.
As a designer, you not only need to know what looks good but why something looks good.
How does this design make me feel?
What problems does this design fix?
Who is this for and why?
Where does this design draw my eye?
What's the intended action after viewing this design?
How can you interact with the design?
Why do these color work together?
Being able to identify and answer these types of questions will help you develop your eye and explain why certain designs work and others don't.
Don't think of this as stealing design concepts for personal gain, but as a tool to advance your technical skill set. Remember in Kindergarten when you would trace letters as you learned to write the alphabet? This is the same idea but grown up.
As I started to enjoy design I would think through the steps to recreate designs that I would see throughout my day (flyers, buttons, forms, logos, banners, etc.) This helped me think through my process for creating designs from a technical perspective.
One of the best things I've done to help push my skill set is to find designers that I admire, and try to recreate pieces of their best work.
This showed me what I was capable of and helped me round out areas that I needed improvement on. Furthermore, I was able to add design patterns to my skill set that I could recall when working on future projects.
Next time you're stuck between a starting point and your end goal, copy someone. Often as I'm struggling with a design concept I'll start to copy a design I like and at some point I'll start to branch off and repurpose it for my intended use.
Don't be afraid to copy; there's no shame in that. Just always be sure to give credit where credit is due. If you create something inspired by someone else's work let your audience know where you found your inspiration.
One of the best ways to build confidence as a designer is to start depending on your skill set and creativity to address client needs, goals, and issues.
Clients bring conceptual ideas to the table and rely on you to be able to translate them into a design. My primary value as a UI/UX designer is not to make things pretty but to problem-solve for the user at the other end of the screen.
If you having the ability to take words, data, and abstract concepts and formulate them into a design that makes sense for the user, you can dismiss your Imposter Syndrome fears.
You might not be the flashiest or the most experienced designer (you don't need to be). Businesses aren't concerned with those things.
They are concerned with how you will add value. If you can identify, replicate and create the right designs you will be incredibly valuable wherever you go.


Fly tyers rejoice. This new Gamakatsu Jig Nymph is the only hook you'll need for tying your favorite micro streamers and jig nymphs. In countless tests, the 60-degree eye bend delivers the most natural presentation, but it's also available with a vertical eye. The black matte finish hides well beneath the hackle and hairs, and both barbed and barbless styles are available. The wide bend allows beads and slotted beads to fit right, even tungsten beads. You'll find 20-packs, in sizes 10 through 16, in fly shops and major sporting goods retailers everywhere.


text:
Q: How to Setup Data According to weekdays in iOS Bar Chart I am working on a project of step counter, Where I have to implement the functionality to store the current day steps and append it to ios bar chart data according to the day names. Basically I want to represent the total step counts on the daily weekday basis on ios Bar Chart. It will be very helpful if I get some example code or any hint to append daily steps According to the day name.
Here is my code:-
import UIKit
import Charts

enum WeekDayName: String {
    case Sunday = "Sun"
    case Monday = "Mon"
    case Tuesday = "Tue"
    case Wednesday = "Wed"
    case Thursday = "Thu"
    case Friday = "Fri"
    case Saturday = "Sat"

}

class HistoryViewController: UIViewController,ChartViewDelegate {

    @IBOutlet weak var barChartView: BarChartView!

    var todayName:String!
    let week = ["Sun", "Mon", "Tue", "Wed","Thu", "Fri", "Sat"]
//    let unitsSold = [20.0, 4.0, 6.0, 3.0, 12.0, 16.0, 4.0, 18.0, 2.0, 4.0, 5.0, 4.0]
    let staticSteps = [200, 400, 600, 300, 1200, 1600, 400]

    override func viewDidLoad() {
        super.viewDidLoad()

        getCurrentDayName()

        setup(barLineChartView: barChartView)
    }

    //MARK: Get Current Day Name
    func getCurrentDayName(){
        let weekday = Calendar.current.component(.weekday, from: Date())
        print(weekday)
        switch weekday {
        case 1:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Sunday.rawValue
        case 2:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Monday.rawValue
        case 3:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Tuesday.rawValue
        case 4:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Wednesday.rawValue
        case 5:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Thursday.rawValue
        case 6:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Friday.rawValue
        case 7:
           todayName = WeekDayName.Saturday.rawValue
        default:
            print("nothng")
        }
        print(todayName)
    }

    func setup(barLineChartView chartView: BarChartView) {
        chartView.chartDescription?.enabled = false

        chartView.isUserInteractionEnabled = false //Disables the selection for bar charts
        chartView.dragEnabled = true
        chartView.setScaleEnabled(false) //turn off scaling /kinda pinch zoom type
        chartView.pinchZoomEnabled = false //disables pinch zoom

        let xAxis = chartView.xAxis
        xAxis.labelPosition = .bottom
        xAxis.labelFont = .systemFont(ofSize: 10)

        //hides grid
        xAxis.drawGridLinesEnabled = false

        chartView.xAxis.valueFormatter = WeekValueFormatter()

        xAxis.labelCount = 7
        chartView.animate(yAxisDuration: 3)
       chartView.rightAxis.enabled = false

        let leftAxisFormatter = NumberFormatter()
        leftAxisFormatter.minimumFractionDigits = 0
        leftAxisFormatter.maximumFractionDigits = 1

        let leftAxis = chartView.leftAxis
        leftAxis.labelFont = .systemFont(ofSize: 10)
        leftAxis.labelCount = 8
        leftAxis.valueFormatter = DefaultAxisValueFormatter(formatter: leftAxisFormatter)
        leftAxis.labelPosition = .outsideChart
        leftAxis.spaceTop = 0.15
        leftAxis.axisMinimum = 0 // FIXME: HUH?? this replaces startAtZero = YES

        let l = chartView.legend
        l.horizontalAlignment = .left
        l.verticalAlignment = .bottom
        l.orientation = .horizontal
        l.drawInside = false
        l.form = .circle
        l.formSize = 9
        l.font = UIFont(name: "HelveticaNeue-Light", size: 11)!
        l.xEntrySpace = 4

        //setChart(dataPoints: months, values: unitsSold.map { Double($0) })
        setChart(dataPoints: week, values: staticSteps)
    }

    func setChart(dataPoints: [String], values: [Int]) {
        barChartView.noDataText = "You need to provide data for the chart."

        var dataEntries: [BarChartDataEntry] = []

        for i in 0..<dataPoints.count {
            let dataEntry = BarChartDataEntry(x: Double(i), y: Double(values[i]))
            dataEntries.append(dataEntry)
        }

        let chartDataSet = BarChartDataSet(entries: dataEntries, label: "BeWell Workout Chart")
        chartDataSet.colors = ChartColorTemplates.colorful()
        let chartData = BarChartData(dataSet: chartDataSet)
        barChartView.data = chartData
    }

//MARK: Weeks Bottom Label Class for x-Axis labels
public class WeekValueFormatter: NSObject, IAxisValueFormatter {

    override init() {
        super.init()
    }

    public func stringForValue(_ value: Double, axis: AxisBase?) -> String {
        let weekday = Calendar.current.component(.weekday, from: Date())
        let week = ["Sun", "Mon", "Tue", "Wed","Thu", "Fri", "Sat"]

        return week[Int(value)]
    }
}

A: Assuming that

*

*Your week is only 1 week at a time, so no day String repeats in the bar chart and

*The day Strings in week stay in order (are never randomly sorted)...

You can create a new Int for your Bar Chart's dataSet that has the values of weekdays that have passed and today, with 0 values for upcoming days like this:
func createNewArray() -> [Int] {

    var stepsThisWeek = [Int]()

    // use todays day to find the index of where it appears in var week=[String]()
    if let todayIndex = week.firstIndex(of: getCurrentDayName()) {

        // create indices range of 0 to todayIndex
        let daysSoFarIndices = [Int](0...todayIndex)

        // create new array of var staticSteps=[Int]() at daysSoFarIndices
        stepsThisWeek = daysSoFarIndices.map { staticSteps[$0] }

        //create indices from todayIndex +1 to lastIndex of var staticSteps=[Int]()
        let daysLaterInWeek = [Int](todayIndex..<staticSteps.endIndex)
        //add 0 values for each daysLaterInWeek remaining
        for _ in daysLaterInWeek {
            stepsThisWeek.append(0)
        }
    }
    return stepsThisWeek
}

Then you can call this method where you set your Bar Chart's values like:
setChart(dataPoints: week, values: createNewArray())

Today is Monday, so your bar chart will appear like this.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: R - Aggregate (sum) totals for grouped data using dplyr I have a large dataset containing the names of hospitals, the hospital groups and then the number of presenting patients by month. I'm trying to use dplyr to create a summary that contains the total number of presenting patients each month, aggregated by hospital group. The data frame looks like this:
Hospital | Hospital_group | Jan 03 | Feb 03 | Mar 03 | Apr 03 | .....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hosp 1   | Group A        |    5   |    5   |    6   |    4   | .....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hosp 2   | Group A        |    6   |    3   |    8   |    2   | .....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hosp 3   | Group B        |    5   |    5   |    6   |    4   | .....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hosp 4   | Group B        |    3   |    7   |    2   |    1   | .....
---------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to create a new dataframe that looks like this:
Hospital_group |Jan 03 | Feb 03 | Mar 03 | Apr 03 | .....
----------------------------------------------------------
Group A        |   11  |    8   |    14  |   6    | .....
----------------------------------------------------------
Group B        |   8   |    12  |     8  |   5    | .....
----------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to use dplyr to summarise the data but am a little stuck (am very new at this as you might have guessed). I've managed to filter out the first column (hospital name) and group_by the hospital group but am not sure how to get a cumulative sum total for each month and year (there is a large number of date columns so I'm hoping there is a quick and easy way to do this).
Sorry about posting such a basic question - any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Greg

A: Use summarize_all:
Example:
df <- tibble(name=c("a","b", "a","b"), colA = c(1,2,3,4), colB=c(5,6,7,8))
df

# A tibble: 4 × 3
   name  colA  colB
  <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
1     a     1     5
2     b     2     6
3     a     3     7
4     b     4     8

df %>% group_by(name) %>% summarize_all(sum)

Result:
# A tibble: 2 × 3
   name  colA  colB
  <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
1     a     4    12
2     b     6    14

Edit: In your case, your data frame contains one column that you do not want to aggregate (the Hospital name.) You might have to either deselect the hospital name column first, or use summarize_at(vars(-Hospital), funs(sum)) instead of summarize_all.

A: We can do this using base R
We split the dataframe by Hospital_group and then sum it column-wise.
do.call(rbind, lapply(split(df[-c(1, 2)], df$Hospital_group), colSums))

#          Jan_03 Feb_03 Mar_03 Apr_03
#Group_A     11      8     14      6
#Group_B      8     12      8      5


Civil Litigation Court Records Search: RiskAware's Civil Suit Records Check identifies applicants who were either plaintiffs or defendants in past civil proceedings. This history may establish a candidate's tendency of suing or being sued that increase an employer's risk of lawsuit in hiring the applicant. Civil records uncover liens and cases involving violations of trade secrets and non-compete agreements. Civil suit records will indicate the nature of the complaint, filing dates, case status, names of plaintiffs and defendants and judgments. This type of search is most typically used when tied closely to a particular job function and company policies, to help avoid EEOC violations. Civil records are available nationally on the federal level or on the state level by county.
	Federal Civil Suit Search –A search for records of the applicant as either a plaintiff or defendant in a federal civil lawsuit within a specified District. Federal Civil Suit Searches are performed by searching electronics records through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or by engaging our extensive national network of Court Runners to retrieve information requested by RiskAware directly from the Federal Court.
	County Civil Suit Search – A search for records of the applicant as either a plaintiff or defendant in a civil lawsuit at the county level. Detects disputes between private parties (i.e., contracts), liens, law suits, paternity suits, domestic disputes, divorce, restraining orders, negligent acts that cause harm to others (i.e., injury due to a car accident), and other such legal proceedings which are not criminal in nature but which indicate a pattern of legal behavior that may pose a risk to the employer. County Civil Suit Search records are obtained directly and in person from county courthouses by engaging our national network of Court Runners dispatched to more than 3,400 U.S. counties..


I don't know if you read Nicholas Kristoff's op-ed piece in the NY Times Saturday, Message To Muslims: I'm Sorry.
In the piece, Mr. Kristoff correctly states many Muslims are compassionate, peaceful and altruistic people. He expresses regret for Americans equating Muslims with terrorists, suggests Americans should not malign Islam because of the acts of Islamic terrorists and apologizes to Muslims for those who have done so.
Mr. Kristoff is undoubtedly correct that there are many Muslims who are compassionate, peaceful and altruistic, and that they should be treated like human beings, not terrorist monsters. I'll go further: Christians should not only love peaceful Muslims but Muslim terrorists also.
But Mr. Kristoff is undoubtedly wrong in suggesting–as it seems he does–that the relative goodness of the Muslims he identifies as compassionate, peaceful and altruistic should exempt Islam from public scrutiny.
First, Mr. Kristoff's premise is fuzzy. Does he mean by "equating Muslims with terrorists" that he believes Americans are accusing all Muslims of being terrorists or supporting it? I've not heard anyone suggest that. What I have heard is people saying Islam is not a "religion of peace" and questioning the earnestness of Muslims who say it is. There is nothing persecutory or bigoted about doing so. It's a fair question.
Second, Americans believe the public square is the marketplace of ideas. Islam is an idea, just as Christianity is an idea. Ideas can be true, false, good or bad. But the American experiment is rooted in the supposition that discussion is the means by which we arrive at the proper conclusion about any idea. Mr. Kristoff seems to suggest that Islam should be exempt from that discussion. (By the way, in a typical Islamic state there is no such discussion).
There should be no surprise that Islam's stock is currently down in America. It could have something to do with Muslims flying planes into buildings, threatening, in the name of Allah, to kill cartoonists and would-be book burners. Even if that is the impetus for the discussion, it doesn't delegitimize it.
I get the impression Mr. Kristoff wants to make sure people are treated fairly and humanely and he believes by exempting Islam from the public discussion it is more likely we will all be able to get along. He seems like a good and thoughtful man, and his motive and intent should be lauded. We need men and women like Mr. Kristoff who can talk people off the ledge of bigotry and xenophobia. But at some point Truth matters, and refusing to talk about the underlying idea that is at issue doesn't bring resolution or peace; it just postpones them.
I remember the excoriation Ronald Reagan received in the media for calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." I'm sure there were Soviet communist party members who were compassionate, peaceful and altruistic people at the time, and there were plenty of journalists–probably some who worked for the New York Times–who suggested the answer to the Cold War standoff was that we seek a better understanding of the Soviet people and their needs and fears.


Published 04/22/2019 01:02:03 am at 04/22/2019 01:02:03 am in Sectional With Storage Ottoman.
sectional with storage ottoman fabric sectional with storage ottoman fabric sectional with storage ottoman chocolate sectional couch chocolate fabric sofa scott living living room sectional with storage ottoman scott living sectional with storage ottoman.
spectacular cyber week deal on hampton leather reversible sectional hampton leather reversible sectional and storage ottoman, in by coaster in cleveland oh sectional with storage ottoman sectional with storage ottoman, excellent marks and piece modular fabric sectional with regard to excellent marks and piece modular fabric sectional with regard to sofa modern costco storage ottoman, adorable piece sectional sofa with left arm facing chaise bobs adorable piece sectional sofa with left arm facing chaise bobs storage ottoman enchanting fabri, black fridays hottest sales on carolina fabric sectional couch with carolina fabric sectional couch with storage ottoman dark gray, star home living grey upholstered transitional sectional with star home living grey upholstered transitional sectional with storage ottoman, bk in by myco furniture in pascagoula ms maya black sectional maya black sectional with storage ottoman, amazoncom harper bright designs piece sectional sofa harper bright designs piece sectional sofa microfiber with reversible chaise lounge storage ottoman and, fairmont designs doris piece sectional sofa with storage ottoman fairmont designs doris piece sectional sofa with storage ottoman walmartcom, couch storage sectional with storage fabric sectional with storage couch storage sectional with storage fabric sectional with storage ottoman sectional with storage wanted fabric sectional with storage couch storage bag, sectional couch with ottoman buildingbridgesme sectional couch with ottoman sectional couch with ottoman multiple colors available sectional couch with storage ottoman.


우리는 중국에서 종이 봉지 제조 업체 및 공급 업체 / 공장 전문화되어 있습니다. 종이 봉지 중 하나 인 Dongguan Sunway Packaging Material Co., Ltd 중국 유명 브랜드 중 하나 인 저렴한 가격 / 저렴한 가격으로 고품질의 종이 봉지 도매업.
Wholesale 종이 봉지 from China, Need to find cheap 종이 봉지 as low price but leading manufacturers. Just find high-quality brands on 종이 봉지 produce factory, You can also feedback about what you want, start saving and explore our 종이 봉지, We'll reply you in fastest.


text:
Q: Drupal - Node Delete Button and Node Expiration Date In Drupal 7 when a user is logged in and viewing their own node, or an admin is viewing any node I'm looking to have 2 buttons that appear:

*

*Delete NODE

*Renew NODE

When delete is pressed, the status is set and then saved.
When Renew is pressed, the expiration date is extended by another 30 days.
Any advice on how to get started is much appreciated!

A: Use this http://drupal.org/project/auto_expire or http://drupal.org/project/scheduler module for node renew option , i hope it will help you!!!.