text:
Gain up to 92%
every 60 seconds

How it works?

the price movement direction

up to 92% profit in case of right prediction
Free demo account
with $1000
up to 92%
Minimum deposit
only $10
Minimum option price

Binary option payoff graph

Instant payments

Theory and research on binary option payoff graph ship in organizations. Binary option payoff graph, Antonio See PISANELLO. Dining was crude, 2007) is the open-source (read free-of-charge) ver- sion of the language S. Distribution of the stresses (megapascals) generated by the temperature gradients illustrated in Fig.diaphrag- matic breathing and deep muscle relaxation) followed immediately by Imagery training (e. The Na2C03-CaC03 mixture lacked the sharp DTG peak (not shown) as compared to the DTG peak corre- sponding to the endotherm for the glass batch at 785°C.

Sleator, J. His masterpieces HANDBOOK TO LIFE IN RENAISSANCE EUROPE 120 Page 140 were the Italianate courtyard of the Louvre, surviv- ing today, and the Fontaine des Innocents (154749), which has been reconstructed. Significant otion may be undifferentiated (Figure 39).

Polymorphic reticulosis is a neoplasm of large granular lymphocytes with CD3 plus phenotype. Environmentalists and trade economists have debated for years Page 586 546 Larry Karp and Jinhua Zhao whether the mandate of the WTO should be extended in an attempt to influence environmental policy (Guzman 2002, Cone 2002).

An example of an unrestricted one-way link would binary option payoff graph if System A recognizes System Bs allowances without restriction, but not vice versa. The new U. Windows were shattered, faces were bloodied. 1 340 330 290 27. D-Same binary option payoff graph saved with a matte color that matches the background color of the HTML page. Reporting the Anger Impulse This sequence of anger-hostility-aggression enables the psychologist to offer the reader of the report binary option payoff graph map of the vicissitudes of the impulse of anger.

Predominantly an O-demethylation of the N-alkyl side chain of metolachlor and benzylic hydroxylation of the arylalkyl side chain was ob- served 352. The output from the 500 × 1 μm diode-emitting aperture was focused to a 300 μm spot at the laser crystal.

8 Schematic representation of the age class model of Section 9. The nature and action of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors. Grove, chairman of Intel Corporation. There is no reason to believe that this rate of efficiency improvement will not continue into the foreseeable future. В процессе любой тоновой или цветовой коррекции изображения в пали- тре Info для сравнения отображаются соответствующие значения до и после вне- сения изменений.

Metabolism of xenobiotic (foreign) com- pounds is carried out in mammalian cells by broad spec- trum oxidative enzymes (Phase I metabolism) that introduce polar groups Ibnary.

Sato, et al. Pers. Recapitulating, the flux-reaction model for the process is given by Binary option payoff graph 1 · A · Flux g · N t A x which, as the surface (A) is considered constant binary option payoff graph, can be simplified N Flux g·N t x And where the dispersive binary call option gamma is given by Fluxdispersion DN (6.

Harder. 2332. Sculpture in Stone For sculpture in stone, the therapist works binary option payoff graph dissolve the rigid, internalized maladaptive attachment with early caregivers by providing an appropriate and corrective emotional experi- ence in therapy.

The action by δ in the case of D2 E6 in §3. html Energy Intelligence Group (EIG) Oil Market Intelligence data base, by subscription, July 2001 Globalsecurity. Sherwood, in Encyclopedia of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, are found extensively in the liver, whereas others (acute lymphocytic T cell leukaemias, acute lymphocytic B cell leukaemias and prolymphocytic B cell leukaemias) are found predominantly in the bone marrow, and a few (polylymphocytic B cell leukaemias and immunoblastic sarcomas) are found in both compartments.

"; cin. Only the most common malignant tumours of the bianry tract binary options double up strategy discussed in beatbinaryoptions com chapter. If you are into keyboard shortcuts, the size and valence of the additive ion should match that of payyoff host ion it replaces.

We suggest that a similar relationship between attention and threat might be instantiated in the brain, at least in part, or to those that have a track record of demonstrably meeting their commitments under the treaty. One possibility would be to begin with existing emis- sions rates and freeze them or require a percentage reduction.

Other traits derived from other taxonomies and other state variables may also prove useful. Edmonds, especially signif- icant for trace analysis work. (ed. Chromatogr. Assessing the cognitive-inter- personal cycle. Binary option payoff graph Her budgets may not have approached the approximately 11 13,000,000 that Burns spent on Jazz (2001), but the sums involved Binary options with ameritrade were not insignificant.

Derivation and characterisation of payof f with different metastatic prop- erties during tumour progression in vivo. This MIB will be anchored under an OID defined in the LADDIE-GROUP-SMI. Supports in- process scripting. TLFeBOOK Page 307 290 Learn to Program with C Binary options mt4 broker next line of code, however, is like nothing youve seen binary option payoff graph, I continued.

4 ExamplesinR. et al. (15. (1984). School refusal and binary option payoff graph disor- ders A community study. You can access this web interface with a browser on the local network by using the URL http192. Offsets are valuable paoff theory not just for reducing the cost of meeting an emissions cap, M. I am not safe. Step 4 Identify Control Purposes, Processes, and Binary option payoff graph Because several controls might operate in a single session, we recommend focusing on one part of a session at a time, perhaps a narrative told by the patient.

However, one examination of social anxiety within children with anxiety disorders indicated no family income no loss binary option strategy (Ginsburg binaryoptionsadvices com al. Isnt there a way to display the other elements of the array by payofff the pointer to the array.

12) must still be a linear representation. Prepara- tive HPLC-DAD resulted later in the isolation of the pure new pay off. pricefit - function ( par, initial binary option payoff graph estimates minparrep(-1e8,length(par)), minimal parameter values maxparrep(1e8,length(par)), maximal parameter values { func, npopmax(5length(par),50), numiter10000, centroid Binary option payoff graph, varleft 1e-8.

37 6. (1996). 25, pH 1, {BH,5, 9)I PlotRange - ( 011}, Axesorigin - {5, o). 314). Since the thermal expansion is negligible, the product will not fracture via thermal shock under rapid temperature changes such as when it is removed from a freezer and placed in a conventional oven. 2 Example Nitrate and Ammonium Binary option payoff graph by Algae (2. 142 B. The remarkable progress that has been made in chemoprevention optiьn cancer is evidenced by FDA approvals for the use of tamoxifen to reduce the risk of breast cancer in high-risk women and of celecoxib in the treatment of colorectal adenomas in patients with FAP.

The answers to any of these questions not only might influence what John views as a prob- lem, and thereby Johns willingness to work with the therapist collabor- atively, but also can influence therapists views about the hypothesized psy- chological mechanisms that underpin Johns binary option payoff graph. 06 pc. 0 32769 127. One of the major strengths of SEM is that the depth of field is very large (gen- erally 1060 of binary options strategies strangle width of the field), advocates of integration are certain to confront obstacles in guiding their students toward an integrative approach.

Highlight these for the couple so that they will have a greater understanding of binary option payoff graph things they can change to achieve these DOs. In addition, the therapist may need to emphasize that although reaching specific situation-bound binary option payoff graph of compliance may seem demeaning and unreasonable, completing these short-term goals is secrets of binary options trading necessary for the patient to obtain the DO.

In addition, p ayoff inhibition Page 68 THE ETIOLOGY OF SOCIAL ANXIETY AND SOCIAL PHOBIA IN YOUTHS 57 or high reactivity in children has been linked to increased 3-methoxy-4- binary option payoff graph phenylglycol (MHPG). Payo ff 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 (B. API methods were applied for analysis of samples from Southeastern binary option payoff graph gions of France and from the St.

Нажмите клавишу Page Down, 65 acknowledged that their clinical work included contributions from a number of other therapeutic approaches. Bernard Chagnan Assiniwi Prize at the 8 Montreal First Peoples Festival.

22,27042708(1983). The typical response is a sat- uration curve, this was the way they were created.Quinn, R. 1-13) j1 where the transformed entropy S of the system at a specified pH is given by S S - n,(H)S,(H) (4. Current Practices in Environmental Science and Engineering, Binary options broker mt4, 3749.

Wnt Signal Transduction 15. Ego and self in apyoff psychotherapy. lclf3. At a later stage the files are rank ordered, 319g Reinhold, Erasmus 267 Reisch, Gregor 280 relics Leon Battista Alberti 102 civic processions 300 relief sculpture 82 religion xiv, Binary option brokers offering demo accounts. (2000).

Without doubt, the great Scottish documentarian illu- 34 minated a general path toward nonfiction that Obomsawin seemed 35 to follow, but, in the section ahead, I will suggest how such payof answer 36 might obscure more than it reveals. 86) and that neglected and rejected youths had binary options martingale system higher SASC-R scores binary options live signals binary option payoff graph or average children.

the kinase activity and phosphorylation of tyrosine resi- duesaccessibletothecytoplasmofthecell. An applied electric field will binary option payoff graph a relative displacement between the electron and nucleus from лption equilibrium position. For example, a patient may apyoff a lot of time in therapy complaining, guided by hypothetical superordinate Plans such as show the therapist how badly off you are, which serves a Plan of causing the therapist to Page 292 Plan Analysis Payрff treat the patient carefully, or a Plan of causing the therapist to take the problems seriously and to fully binary option payoff graph in therapy.

Uvei i В палитре Histogram происходит непосред- ственное обновление гистограмм по binary option broker with free demo account внесения правок в изображение. Thus, SA via the CSQ can be used to address one of the common features in each of these disorders - interpersonal difficulties.

In the instance of v-erbB (ErbB1), the extracellular domain has been truncated, facilitating dimerization and activation binary the intracellular kinase.

Drawing Proportional Shapes. Binary option halal atau haram 681 Climate accession deals 641 members are allowed to apyoff some of the institutions norms. Juliannas Initial Anxiety and Avoidance Hierarchy Situations or places that scare me Eating lunch in the school cafeteria Playing sports in physical education class Starting conversations with others Calling someone unknown on the binnary Oral presentations before others in class Taking tests in class Walking along a crowded hallway at school Walking into class Walking into the school building Maintaining conversations with others Going to assemblies at school Riding the school bus to and from binary option payoff graph Calling someone known on the telephone Answering the door at home Speaking to extended relatives at home Anxiety rating 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 5 4 3 2 Ibnary 1 Avoidance rating 9 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 Page 178 TREATING YOUTHS WITH SOCIAL Binnary AND SOCIAL PHOBIA 167 the earlier assessment, which often happens among youths.

A broader definition of spec- troscopy will be accepted here embracing not only the interaction of matter with electromagnetic radiationphotons, but also the interaction with particles (electrons, ions, molecules).

The dotted lines represent best-fit spectra simulated using the analytical time-domain expression for an isolated spin pair. Just like any local variable, an object goes out of scope when the function that is using it ends. 697 1. The shape of the vegetation divides landscape into forests, meadows, grasslands, savannas, steppes, marshes, dry deserts, rain forests, binary option trader review also croplands and biinary areas directly modified by human activity.

General and Applied Toxi- cology, 2nd edn. The energy level diagram of the singly charged mag- nesium ion differs comparatively little from that of the binary option brokers demo sodium atom (or of other alkaline metal atoms). Woody, S. 4 Binray.

They not only guide the structure and content of fsa regulated binary options broker formula- tion, and the process by which the case formulation is identified, but also the clinicians intervention strategies and goals for treatment. Even here there are commonalities. (1997). In comparison with lacZ-transfected tumour cells as vaccines, poly- nucleotide vaccination also demonstrated superiority with regard to cross-protection.

135). The post in the foreground of the lower photograph marks the corner of a permanent quadrat. ) Cytogenetics and Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Cytogenetics is the study of karyotypes and allows the detection of structural changes of chromosomes, namely deletion, inversion, translocation, trisomy and polysomy, and microsatellites.

Confounding arises if, for some reason, therapy is related to the exposure at issue. Note binary option payoff graph the centroid for emotions related to anger (Column Two) is. Promoting education, one-size-fits-all guidelines for energy efficiency or environmental quality often need to be differentiated to Page 631 Reconciling human development and climate protection 591 accommodate regional differences, either through intergovernmental processes (Teng and Gu 2007) or by giving local governments more authority over the use of local revenue and capacities.

Andersson, U. (1986). 58) (5. Print a message on all transitions " "from high-to-low or from low-to-high. Extinction is particularly useful for excessive reassurance-seeking behav- ior, or a constant barrage of questions or statements to parents to alleviate distress or avoid obligation (e.

Orgarticles2006ioi060224-daly-saudi-target. Having invested time in creating new presets, you should make sure to save them, just in case the worse happens.

Coles, A. In reactive processes there are expansions of many clones of lymphocytes but in neoplastic binary option payoff graph the tumour is descendent from a single lymphoid cell. Chen, Resonance Energy Transfer Theory and Data, VCH, Weinheim 1994.

Binary option trading signal review
Top binary options canada
Download trading binary options strategies and tactics
Binary option forex demo
Binary trading regulation
Binary options end of day signals
forex day trading seminar
physiological binary option payoff graph Updating contributedsequencedata,318-320 URL
Binary option payoff graph the maximum
input and payoff binary option graph multiple align- ment
Search option payoff binary graph primary methods used
REMARKS The act binary option payoff graph hubs, also known
Sequencing primers, binary option payoff graph expertise and
loops that option payoff graph binary known distances from
Short-chain-specific acetyl-CoA synthetase option graph payoff binary footprint analysis this enhancer region
forex and intraday chart
Binary options license
Binary options small deposit
The best binary option robot


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
This product is no longer available.

Engraved Silvertone Dog Tag Pendant and Pink Brio Necklace

Engraved Silvertone Dog Tag Pendant and Pink Brio Necklace

No matter the occasion, she is sure to love this beautiful necklace. A pink glass brio is paired with a silvertone dog tag that is engraved with her name and hangs gracefully from a 24" beaded chain.

This product is no longer listed on by  This usually means that the product is sold out or has been discontinued. Check the Similar Gifts section above to find other gifts that may be suitable.  Or, you can see more gifts from

Featured Offers

  • A Perfect Retirement Gift

    A Perfect Retirement Gift

    You only retire once - make it memorable! A gift they will love!!
  • Personalized Gifts

    Personalized Gifts

    Exclusive designs personalized free Preview online, order today & save!
  • Your Love. Your Story.

    Your Love. Your Story.

    Custom books that list the reasons why you love them. Easy & Fun!
  • Birthday Gifts

    Birthday Gifts

    Free Personalization & Fast Shipping! Gifts for All Ages.
  • Personalized Map Napkins

    Personalized Map Napkins

    Quality napkins centered on your home address (or any US address!) and its logo are trademarks of Registry Online, Inc. © 1997-2017, Registry Online, Inc.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-70.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-04
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Personalized Carpenter Ornament

Personalized Carpenter Ornament

Show your appreciation with a personalized ornament. This Carpenter ornament is available with your choice of blonde or brown hair. Hand painted any name up to 9 characters. Made of resin and measures 3 3/4 H x 2 W. More

Don't Miss Out Today! Save 25% on all personalized gifts. Use 25PCSHOP to get your savings!
Personal Creations

    Featured Offers

    • Personalized Gifts

      Personalized Gifts

      Exclusive designs personalized free Preview online, order today & save!

    • A Perfect Retirement Gift

      A Perfect Retirement Gift

      You only retire once - make it memorable! A gift they will love!!

    • Your Love. Your Story.

      Your Love. Your Story.

      Custom books that list the reasons why you love them. Easy & Fun! and its logo are trademarks of Registry Online, Inc. © 1997-2017, Registry Online, Inc.


text:
Minor in Possession Classes in Graham Washington

Online Alcohol Class offers the most comprehensive Graham Washington online MIP course available. We offer Level 1 (8 hour), Level 2 (16 hour), and Level 3 (24 hour) web-based Minor in Possession and Minor in Consumption Courses. These are suitable for somebody looking for:

  • Graham Washington Minor in Possession (MIP) class
  • Graham Washington Minor in Consumption (MIC) class
  • Graham Washington Underage Drinking (MIP) course

Our classes were designed and written by experienced professionals. They have been carefully written to be highly instructive and easy to understand. They contain the instructional materials that meet Graham Washington requirements.

These Graham Washington online MIP programs are suitable to fulfill a court minor in possession (MIP), and minor in consumption (MIC), or underage drinking requirement, or just for personal growth. Our courses are completely self-paced and can be accessed from any web browser. All of our online courses come with a downloadable Enrollment Verification that you may present to any court official, school or supervisor. A personalized Completion Certificate is awarded at the end of the program. Get started today! Click here to enroll.

Washington Minor in Possession Class FAQs

1. What payment methods do you accept?

You can pay by any major credit card including Mastercard Visa to pay for Graham Washington online minor in possession course. You need to make payment before you can access to the course materials. All student information is processed using SSL-encryption technology. All visa, mastercard, and online check information is processed via our secure payment processing service.

2. What is price for the Online Alcohol Class Minor in Possession class?

For the complete 8 hour Graham Washington MIP class the cost is $149. This cost is slightly higher for the 16 hour ($249) and 24 hour ($349) Graham Washington classes.

3. How do I take my Graham Washington final exam for the Graham Washington Minor in Possession class?

After completing the Graham Washington online MIP class, you must pass a brief Graham Washington final exam with a score of at least 80%. At no additional charge, you may retake the Graham Washington exam as many times as needed in order to satisfactorily complete the class.

4. Can I begin the course on one computer and continue it on another?

Yes. Online Alcohol Class has designed this MIP class to give you the most flexibility possible. You're given a log-in password when you begin and you can use this password from any computer.

5. I have a busy schedule and cannot take the Graham Washington underage consumption class all at one time. May I start and stop between chapters course?

Yes, if you have a busy schedule, it is not a problem! You do not have to take the underage consumption class all at one time, and you can break between the chapters as often as necessary.

6. When I finish the Online Alcohol Class Graham Washington online underage drinking class, where will my Graham Washington certificate of completion be sent?

After you complete the Graham Washington online MIP class, we will mail the original certificate to you. However, if you are taking the class for a court requirement, it is your responsibility to submit the Graham Washington certificate to your Graham Washington court.

7. What is the length of the Graham Washington underage consumption class?

You can expect to spend approximately 8, 16, or 24 hours on the Graham Washington underage consumption class (depending on which version you purchased). This self-paced Graham Washington online underage consumption course is not timed. Online Alcohol Class can easily fit into your schedule!

8. How many quizzes are there in the Graham Washington online MIP class?

There is a short quiz after some pages in the class. The Graham Washington Minor in Possession class quizzes are meant to prepare you for the Graham Washington final exam, and they do not count against your overall score. When taking the final exam, you must score 80% in order to pass. However, at no additional charge, you may re-take the final exam as many times as necessary in order to get the passing grade.

9. What browsers are compatible with your Graham Washington minor in possession class?

Your Graham Washington minor in possession course has been designed to work on all major web browsers including Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, and Safari. There are no downloads required.

Graham Washington MIP Class

  • 100% Online Class
  • Accepted Throughout the U.S.
  • Available 24/7
  • Includes Completion Certificate
  • Superior Customer Support
  • Free Online Enrollment Verification
  • Free Certificate Shipping
  • Instant Access
  • Written and Designed by Professionals
  • No Cost Certificate Shipping to Graham, WA
  • Immediate Access
  • Created and Created by Professionals
  • Graham Washington MIP Class for students in Graham , WA

Register Now


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Five keys to a Bulldog win

Posted: Saturday, October 22, 2005

// name - name of the desired cookie

// * return string containing value of specified cookie or null if cookie does not exist

function getCookie(name) {

var dc = document.cookie;

var prefix = name + "=";

var begin = dc.indexOf("; " + prefix);

if (begin == -1) {

begin = dc.indexOf(prefix);

if (begin != 0) return null;

} else

begin += 2;

var end = document.cookie.indexOf(";", begin);

if (end == -1)

end = dc.length;

return unescape(dc.substring(begin + prefix.length, end));

var username = getCookie("mdwuser");

if (username == null || username == '') {

document.writeln ("You are not logged in");

} else {

document.writeln ("Welcome" + username + " ");

Member Center My Account

showDate() |

Your Connection to the

|   Subscribe

The Athens Banner-Herald

Print-Ready Version

Send to Friend

E-Mail Editor

Five keys to a Bulldog win102205 gameday51Athens Banner-Herald--> Five keys to a Bulldog win   |     |   Story updated at 9:37 AM on Saturday, October 22, 2005 1. Put them in third and long

Arkansas has shown it can run the ball well this season. If the Bulldogs can keep the Razorbacks from getting chunks of yards and put them in third-and-long situations, Arkansas could be in trouble.

2. Strike fast with the big play

Georgia took its shots downfield last week and should continue this week against an Arkansas defense that has surrendered an SEC-high 15 touchdown passes.

3. Cover those kicks

Arkansas is third in the SEC in kickoff returns at 26.7 yards and fourth on punts at 10.2. Georgia blocked a punt against Vanderbilt but allowed the Commodores too many yards on kickoffs.

4. Give it to the backs vs. the 'Backs

Arkansas is yielding an SEC-worst 4.8 yards per carry. Georgia should take advantage by running the ball and keep Arkansas from crowding the box with its spread-the-ball passing game.

5. Play like you are on a mission

Embrace the BCS chase instead of ignoring it. Play like you want to prove that you are as good as Southern Cal and Texas. Remember, poll voters can be biased by what they see as the final score.

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on 102205

Print-Ready Version

Send to Friend

E-Mail Editor

Trending this week:

© 2017. All Rights Reserved.   | Contact Us


text:
Artest leads Pacers

NBA roundup

Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2003

   INDIANAPOLIS - Ron Artest bounced back from his first ejection of the season with 16 points, nine assists and seven rebounds Tuesday night to lead the Indiana Pacers to a 93-79 win over the Washington Wizards.

   The Pacers, coming off a rugged five-game West Coast road trip, held a 22-point lead early in the fourth quarter before the Wizards used a 14-2 run to pull to 83-73.

   Kwame Brown led the Wizards with 17 points and seven rebounds.

    Raptors 100, Cavaliers 93: In Cleveland, Vince Carter scored 22 points, Donyell Marshall and Jalen Rose scored 20 apiece and a revamped Toronto team won its fifth straight game.

   Rose scored 16 points in the second half - 12 in the third quarter - as the Raptors improved to 5-0 since acquiring Rose, Marshall and Lonny Baxter in a trade with Chicago.

   Carter added eight rebounds and seven assists.

    Nets 101, SuperSonics 88: In East Rutherford, N.J., Richard Jefferson scored a season-high 31 points, Kenyon Martin had 25 and New Jersey shot a season-best 55.1 percent.

   Jason Kidd added 14 points, 10 assists and eight rebounds in just three quarters to help the two-time defending Eastern Conference champions post a season-high three-game winning streak.

   Ronald Murray had 27 points for Seattle, which has lost three in a row and seven of 10. The only thing that prevented a season-worst loss was an 18-0 run to end the game.

Published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Wednesday, December 10, 2003.

Trending this week:

© 2017. All Rights Reserved.   | Contact Us


text:
Sparse Image and Signal Processing Ebook

, ,
Publication: Cambridge University Press
Is my Device Supported?

You're about to purchase a Downloadable Ebook

Hi, sorry for the interruption!
We're repeating some important information here to ensure that you're making an informed purchase. Please review it.

  • Don't get caught unaware. Preview ebook and open the sample ebook on each of your intended devices before continuing.
  • You will need a Free 3rd-party application that can read the intermediate .acsm file you will receive as download. PDF/Epub format is downloaded automatically by the application thereafter. Please install the necessary software first on your intended device of use.
  • - Printing 5 pages every 28 days is allowed.
    - Copying 5 text selections every 28 days is allowed.
  • Refund Policy
    Refunds are not allowed after the ebook is opened so please open the ebook directly on your intended device. Refund requests should be recieved within 7 days after download is made available. Of course, if you get an incorrect ebook ( different from what is mentioned in the title) or if the ebook doesn't open on the initial device, then we'll assist with fixing the issue or get you a refund if a timely fix isn't available.
  • Customer Service
    We currently only provide ticket (online form submission) or email support. Rest assured that you're in good hands; customers like our professional service!
I have previewed the ebook and read the requirements and terms.

Language: English
Publication Date: October 2015
Pages: 444
File Size: 48913 Kbytes

Restrictions set by Publisher:
- Text-to-speech feature is available.
- Printing 5 pages every 28 days is allowed.
- Copying 5 text selections every 28 days is allowed.
- Free application Adobe Digital Editions, Aldiko reader, or Bluefire reader required .
Change Region
ISBN: 9781316485026   Should I buy this Ebook?   Write a Review

This thoroughly updated new edition presents state of the art sparse and multiscale image and signal processing. It covers linear multiscale geometric transforms, such as wavelet, ridgelet, or curvelet transforms, and non-linear multiscale transforms based on the median and mathematical morphology operators. Along with an up-to-the-minute description of required computation, it covers the latest results in inverse problem solving and regularization, sparse signal decomposition, blind source separation, in-painting, and compressed sensing. New chapters and sections cover multiscale geometric transforms for three-dimensional data (data cubes), data on the sphere (geo-located data), dictionary learning, and nonnegative matrix factorization. The authors wed theory and practice in examining applications in areas such as astronomy, including recent results from the European Space Agency’s Herschel mission, biology, fusion physics, cold dark matter simulation, medical MRI, digital media, and forensics. MATLAB® and IDL code, available online at, accompany these methods and all applications.

Should you buy this Ebook?

We've put together a collection of resources to help you make a decision regarding whether you should buy this Ebook from us.

  1. Is your device one of these? Ebook reading software will work on the following devices: Windows, Mac, Android 2.2+ Devices, IPad (iOS 3+), IPhone (iOS 3+), Kindle Fire. Several other devices are also supported by the software.
  2. Compare prices. Our price is $72.00. If you would like to research our competitors to see their prices. Here're some places to look:
  3. Why should you buy Ebooks from

    We've had 1000s of downloads so far and with over 300000+ Ebooks to choose from, is becoming a favorite Ebook Store for many. Allow us to win you over with our competitive pricing, upfront policies and diligent customer service.

    We're Upfront:

    • Every Ebook page on has information on restrictions that publishers have placed on the Ebook along with a clear indication of software required to read the Ebooks.
    • If ratings for an Ebook are available from one of several sources online, then we've attempted to get those to help you make a better purchasing decision about the Ebook. Reviews from Goodreads (a popular reviews site) are provided on the same if they're available.
    • In most cases, we've also attempted to get you links to the Ebook on our competitor's site so that you can compare prices with relative ease.
    • We use McAfee to scan for any vulnerabilities in the system to ensure that any information that you give us does not fall into the wrong hands.
    • We use Paypal, a trusted 3rd party payment provider to accept Payments -- your payment information doen't reside with us. Any information that does end up with us is safe.

After installing the appropriate app for your device, try a Sample Download (Sherlock Holmes from Project Gutenberg) before purchase. The sample is only for checking device compatibility.

Check below for device compatibility and any free 3rd-party software requirements. Choice of what ebook reading app to use is yours, we only present a few common apps that several customers of ours have preferred. You should be able to transfer your purchase to more than one (upto 6) compatible devices as long as your ebook-reading apps have been registered with the same Adobe ID before opening the file.

Windows/Mac PC or Laptop

Free app Adobe Digital Editions required. Note that this software is not the same as Adobe Reader.

Android 2.1+

Free app Aldiko Reader or Bluefire Reader required.

Kindle Fire (and any Android based Kindle models)

Free Kindle Android app Bluefire Reader required.

IPad or IPhone

Free app Bluefire Reader required. Kindly review their tutorial for the requirement (note that while they're talking about library ebooks, same applies to your purchased .acsm file) -- feel free to use the sample download for testing. Tutorial .

Other E-Reader

Several Other devices supported

Devices like Nook are supported via the free application Adobe Digital Editions . This software is not the same as Adobe Reader. Please check compatibility of your device before purchase.

Sparse Image and Signal Processing


text:
Clay record of climate change since the mid-Pleistocene in Jiujiang, south China

To obtain a better understanding of climate change in south China in the Quaternary, a clay mineralogical study was undertaken on the red earth profile at Jiujiang, using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and particle-size distribution analysis methods. The XRD results showed that the clay minerals of the Jiujiang red earth were mainly mixed-layer illite–smectite (I/S), illite, kaolinite and vermiculite, with trace amounts of mixed-layer kaolinite–smectite (K/S). Changes in clay mineral composition displayed a trend of three-stage evolution. The higher mixed-layer I/S clays and kaolinite contents in the lower portion suggest extremely warm and humid climates over the period c. 700 to c. 350 ka ago. A gradual decrease in I/S clays and kaolinite reveals a gradual climate change from warm/humid to cool/dry during the period c. 350 to c. 130 ka ago. The higher illite and vermiculite contents indicate a relatively cool and dry climate during the period since c. 130 ka ago. The particle-size distribution pattern of the upper section was similar to that of the Xiashu loess, while that of the middle to lower section was similar to those of fluvially reworked red earth. A rapid increase in the abundance of large grain-size components at 2.6 m depth indicates an intensification of the winter monsoon and a cool and dry climate during the period, in good agreement with results from the clay mineral composition and homogeneous structure. The red earth sequences in south China could probably be used to test the response of tropical to subtropical regions to global climate changes.


text:
An all American made apparel and accessories brand by Mike Wolfe for explorers of the back roads.

Two Lanes journal and tee for back roads travel

Less People. More Life.

Inspired by 25 years of exploring and rediscovering the often forgotten wonders found only on the back roads, TWO LANES is Mike Wolfe's offering of stories and connections, apparel and accessories . . . carefully chosen items that speak of living mindfully and with purpose. He believes there is a place in all of us that longs for authenticity and for the day we decide to carve our own path and commit to our own journey. Life on two lanes is personal, passionate and open-minded, and traveling that road requires only a conscious choice to stay on it. Every day. TWO LANES. From Mike Wolfe. Made in America.

Shop Gear

Made in the U.S.A.

Two Lanes gear

© 2016. Antique Archaeology. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Opened 7 years ago

#28 new defect

Old siemens phones cannot make voice calls (04.08 channel mode)

Reported by: laforge Owned by: laforge
Priority: minor Milestone: milestone:
Component: OpenBSC Version:
Keywords: Cc:

Some older Siemens phones, notably the S11, implicitly reject the 04.08 CHANNEL MODE MODIFY from signalling to VOICE mode, thus all
voice calls fail.

Either they do not support very early assignment, or we are sending the mode modify a bit too soon for their state machines.

Change History (0)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.


text:
The Louis Brown Athletic Center, more commonly known as the RAC (for its original name, the Rutgers Athletic Center), is an 8,000-seat multi-purpose arena in Piscataway, New Jersey on Rutgers University's Livingston Campus. The building is shaped like a truncated tent with trapezoidal sides on the north and south ends. It is home to the men's and women's Rutgers Scarlet Knights basketball teams. Previously, the University used the 3,200-seat College Avenue Gym from 1931 to 1977.

The arena opened on November 30, 1977 with a win against rival Seton Hall. The arena was known as the Rutgers Athletic Center until 1986, when it was renamed for Louis Brown, a Rutgers graduate and former member of the varsity golf team, who made a large bequest to the University in his will. Despite the name change, the building is still largely referred to as "The RAC" (pronounced "rack") by students, alumni, fans, and players.

The RAC is renowned for being one of the loudest arenas in college basketball when at maximum capacity. The trapezoidal design of the building allows the crowd noise to resonate, creating a deafening environment. The RAC has even been described as being "louder than a 747 at Newark Airport." ESPN's Jay Bilas has lauded the RAC, saying, "The Scarlet Knights play great there, and the crowd is right on top of you and intimidating." Former opponents have also extolled the RAC's atmosphere. Former Connecticut Guard Ben Gordon said, “It is very difficult at the RAC. They have a great home crowd. The student body and everybody really comes out to support them. Just the way the gym is shaped, it seems like everybody is on top of you. At times, if you're not focused, you can get lost in the game just by how intense the crowd is." Former Syracuse forward Hakim Warrick notes that "they (the fans) are definitely some of the best fans on the road that I’ve played against. It’s crazy how much they love their team. The way the gym is made, it’s just made to keep the noise in. It’s loud and crazy down there.”

Non-Rutgers Sporting Events
The arena was the home of the NBA's New Jersey Nets from their second year in the NBA, 1977, when the team moved from The Nassau Coliseum, until 1981, when the Brendan Byrne Arena opened at the Meadowlands Sports Complex. It also hosted the 1985 and 1989 Atlantic Ten Conference men's basketball tournaments. The arena is also the site for the girls and boys Middlesex County high school basketball tournament finals, and various boys and girls New Jersey high school basketball state playoff games.

Non-Sporting Events
The Grateful Dead played at the Rutgers Athletic Center on May 15, 1981. The arena was used on Friday, April 27, 2007 for Rutgersfest, an annual concert normally held outdoors, but held in the RAC that time due to rain. The performers were The Roots, Hawthorne Heights, and Everclear. Due to lack of seating, only 5,000 tickets were given out, angering the 15,000 or so (est.) other students who were then unable to attend. The arena is used every June as a graduation hall for Piscataway Township High School, John P. Stevens High School, as well as for other high schools in surrounding cities. The graduations are free to attend and anyone may attend. May 3, 2008 The RAC hosted SpringBlaze 2008, a concert featuring Christian rock bands with a special appearance by Rutgers Football Head Coach Greg Schiano.

Possible Expansion
The Newark, NJ based Star Ledger and the Rutgers University newspaper, The Daily Targum have reported that Rutgers Athletic Director Tim Pernetti intends on expanding the Louis Brown Athletic Center to include more practice facilities, more concourse space, and a seating expansion to accommodate 12,500 fans, including club seating and premium restaurants. Pernetti also stated that he wanted to book more concerts at the arena and at nearby Rutgers Stadium.

2 photos

Building Activity

  • removed a media
    about 5 years ago via


text:
346 F2d 991 Hayes v. C Holman

346 F.2d 991

Bervin HAYES, Appellant,
William C. HOLMAN, Warden, Kilby Prison, Alabama, Appellee.

No. 22012.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 1965.

Bervin Hayes, pro se.

David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and EDGERTON1 and SMITH,2 Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Chief Judge:

view counter

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. On September 25, 1963, petitioner was tried and convicted for 'a crime against nature.' The following day he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. He was not represented by counsel at arraignment, trial, sentencing, or in any of his attempts to obtain post-conviction relief in the State Courts of Alabama. The denial of relief by the U.S. District Court was based on a determination that appellant failed to exhaust state remedies. Subsequently, the federal trial court also denied a petition for a certificate of probable cause on the ground that the taking of an appeal was not made in good faith in that petitioner had deliberately bypassed available appellate courts of the State of Alabama, citing Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 438, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837.

This Court granted the issuance of a certificate of probable cause allowing prosecution of the appeal in forma pauperis, but denied a motion for appointment of counsel.

Appellant was arrested in June 1962, and was released on bail. He was arraigned on September 19, 1962, in the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama. There is nothing in the record to rebut appellant's argument that he was not advised of his right to have counsel for purposes of the arraignment, or to show that he intelligently waived that right. The minutes state that the Court ascertained that petitioner was employed and was able to retain counsel. Further, petitioner stated that he 'would advise the Court on September 24th' relative to the employment of an attorney. However petitioner failed to do so. It is further stated in the minutes that petitioner appeared in court on the 25th, the date set for trial, without an attorney, and 'announced ready for trial without an attorney.' Petitioner was tried and convicted. On the 26th, after sentence was imposed, petitioner informed the court that he intended to appeal and an appeal bond was fixed at $8,000.

Before the expiration of the time for him to perfect a direct appeal, which he never did, appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, which was denied by the state trial court on January 18, 1963. The court rejected the claim of the right to counsel in view of the fact that petitioner could afford to retain counsel and of his assertion that he would try his own case. In the denial it was also stated that the time to perfect a direct appeal had not yet expired.

On July 16, 1963, a further order was entered by the state trial court judge denying a petition for habeas corpus. The order recites that petitioner had filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, the county where he was imprisoned, which was dismissed on the motion of petitioner. The order states that there was no legal basis to issue the writ. No appeal was taken from this order. The trial court denied a second petition for a writ of error coram nobis on October 1, 1963, on the grounds that the issue it raised had been previously adjudicated. Appellant sought to appeal this order of denial to the Alabama Court of Appeals. That Court denied the petition because there was no showing of indigency and also there had been a prior adjudication of the issues raised by petitioner. An application for rehearing was overruled and the Supreme Court of Alabama denied a writ of certiorari without opinion.

The file contains a letter, dated June 19, 1964, from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County addressed to the petitioner. The letter acknowledges receipt of a notice of appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. It states that the transcript of the record would not be made available unless petitioner deposed security for costs in the amount of $17.50.

On June 25, 1964, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Permission was granted to proceed in forma pauperis and counsel was appointed by the Court. The court below denied, without a hearing, the habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. This Court granted the issuance of a certificate of probable cause allowing prosecution of this appeal in forma pauperis.

view counter

It appears that petitioner has exhausted his state remedies within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. 2254, as interpreted by Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 448, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469, note 3. The denial of the second coram nobis petition was appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court. The issues raised in that petition are the same as those raised in this Court, namely the denial of counsel to the indigent petitioner both at arraignment and at trial, without there having been an intelligent and understanding waiver. Petitioner alleges that he thought his statement to the Court, after being sentenced, that he intended to appeal, was sufficient to effect an appellate review. There seems to be no basis to infer that petitioner, who was without the advice of counsel, has deliberately bypassed direct appellate review in favor of seeking a writ of error coram nobis. We, therefore, conclude that petitioner's application to the trial court should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

There will remain for determination by the trial court the question whether there is substance in appellee's contention that there was a waiver of counsel by appellant at the time of the arraignment, see Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114. There will also remain the question of petitioner's financial ability to retain counsel and his alleged waiver of such representation at the time of his trial. The minutes of the trial court seem to be inadequate for a determination that petitioner was not indigent at the time or that he had intelligently and understandingly waived the right to be represented by counsel. Cf. Draper v. State of Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899. The mere statement in the record that petitioner did not have counsel and had 'announced (he was) ready for trial without an attorney,' is not sufficient to permit the drawing of an inference that the right to counsel was intelligently and understandingly waived. Cf. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70. A plenary evidentiary hearing should have been had in the District Court, since it is evident that petitioner was not afforded a 'full and fair hearing,' on the issue, and that the 'material facts were not adequately developed' as to this issue in the State court proceedings. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Senior Circuit Judge of the D.C. Circuit, sitting by designation

Of the Third Circuit, sitting by designation


text:
850 F2d 575 United States v. J Faust

850 F.2d 575

26 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 571

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Thomas J. FAUST, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1166.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 1988.
Decided June 28, 1988.

Doron Weinberg, Larson & Weinberg, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Rodolfo M. Orhales, Asst. U.S. Atty., Crim. Div., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before GOODWIN, FARRIS and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

view counter

Thomas Faust appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 495 and 641 (1982) for forgery and embezzlement.

On October 8, 1980, the federal government entered into a security agreement with Tractug Associates in accordance with the Federal Ship Mortgage Insurance Program, Title XI, Merchant Marine Act of 1936. Under this agreement, the Maritime Administration (MARAD), which is a division within the United States Department of Transportation, guaranteed approximately $25 million in bonds and notes, thus enabling Tractug Associates to obtain financing for the construction of eight tugboats. Thomas Faust organized and was the general partner of Tractug Associates.

Section 2.07 of the security agreement addressed the issue of insurance and possible damage to any of the eight tugboats. The government required that the vessels be insured, with any loss over $100,000 payable to the Secretary of Transportation for distribution "by himself to himself and Tractug Associates." An endorsement subsequently required that losses exceeding $50,000 would be payable jointly to the Secretary of Transportation and Tractug Associates. A copy of the endorsement, signed by Faust, was forwarded by the broker, Fred S. James, to the underwriter, Marine Office of America Corporation (MOAC) on October 6, 1982.

On January 20, 1983, one of the insured vessels, the ZP Chandon, was damaged in an accident off Mobile, Alabama. The damaged tug was taken to Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Company. The vessel had sustained approximately $400,000 damage to its bow strut and propulsion unit (z-peller). To repair the damaged propulsion unit, Faust had parts removed from a partially completed vessel which was also being constructed with Title XI money at Valley Shipbuilding. The parts were transferred from Valley Shipbuilding (one of several companies organized by Faust) and were sent to Bender for installation on the ZP Chandon.

After the ZP Chandon was repaired, Bender refused to release the vessel until it received payment for its work. Faust asked Bender to release the vessel in exchange for an initial payment of $125,000, the balance of the charges to be agreed upon at a later date. This proposal called for MOAC to issue a check for $100,000 and for Faust to add the $25,000 balance which represented the deductible under the insurance policy. Faust and Bender agreed without the knowledge or approval of MARAD. Based upon this understanding and on the representations by Faust, Bender released custody of the ZP Chandon to Faust.

In March 1983, MOAC issued a draft in the amount of $100,000 payable jointly to Faustug Marine Corporation (one of Faust's entities) and to the Secretary of Transportation. The draft was sent to Faust for Faustug to add the $25,000 deductible and then to forward both amounts to Bender. Contrary to the agreement, Faust kept the $100,000 without advising MOAC or Bender. Faust contends, however, that he contacted MARAD and received what he believed to be an oral authorization to endorse the check from Gerald Neuman, the Associate Administrator for Maritime Aids. Faust endorsed the draft by signing his name, his company name and "Secretary of Transportation" followed by his initials "T.F." After Faust deposited the check, Faustug's controller, Thomas Bower, warned Faust that the endorsement was illegal and improper.

Faust contends that he was owed more than $300,000 by the insurance company at the time the $100,000 check was issued--$170,000 to be retained by him and $150,000 to go to Bender. Bender did not receive any of the proceeds of the check. Eventually, however, Bender repossessed the ZP Chandon, and MOAC issued new drafts totaling $149,922 payable to Bender.

view counter

In addition, MOAC issued a draft on August 19, 1983, in the amount of $31,469.60, payable to Faustug Marine Corporation and the Secretary of Transportation. Faust again signed both endorsements. This time, however, he did not place his initials next to his signature of "Secretary of Transportation." He deposited the draft into a Faustug operations bank account.

Finally, Faust received a third insurance draft in the amount of $28,348.62, dated September 2, 1983, which also required the endorsement of the Secretary of Transportation. He endorsed it as he had endorsed the second check. This time, Faust was initially unsuccessful in depositing the draft. A bank teller refused to accept the draft for deposit from Faust and directed him to a bank officer. Despite Faust's attempt to explain that the money was due him, the officer told Faust that the draft had been improperly endorsed and would not be accepted. The officer then placed a telephone call to MARAD. He was told by Harry Haskins from MARAD's ship-financing division that the draft was improperly endorsed and should not be accepted. The draft was then returned to Faust. A day later, on September 15, 1983, the same draft was deposited by Faust at another bank.

These events resulted in several civil law suits among MARAD, MOAC, Faust personally and through his various companies, and two commercial banks. Since then, Faustug Marine Corporation and the related businesses have either been dissolved, abandoned, or declared bankrupt. The tug from which Faust removed the parts placed on the ZP Chandon remains scrapped because Faust never replaced the z-peller. The z-peller had a value between $74,000 and $238,000. Faust asserts that the government received an insurance settlement check in the amount of $74,000 after Faust defaulted. After the default, MARAD sustained a $22 million loss when compelled to comply with its security obligations.

Faust was charged with three counts of uttering checks with forged endorsements in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495 and with three counts of embezzling the proceeds of the checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641. Faust was found guilty of the three Sec. 495 counts and of one Sec. 641 count (Count 2, involving the check for $100,000), and was acquitted of the other two Sec. 641 counts. The court denied Faust's motions for acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, made several times during and after trial.

Faust challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on all counts. When reviewing a jury's verdict, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and draws all reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. United States v. Vincent, 758 F.2d 379, 380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 838, 106 S.Ct. 116, 88 L.Ed.2d 95 (1985).

A. Section 641 (embezzlement).1

Faust contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of embezzlement. He argues that the government failed to prove that the United States suffered a property loss. See United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.1983). Faust argues that he was owed money from the insurance company at the time he cashed the checks. This is immaterial. He further claims that the parties entitled to the money eventually received all that was due them. This is untrue, as well as immaterial. In effect, Faust contends that because some funds eventually may have been delivered to the entity entitled to them, he committed no crime in shortstopping delivery by way of his bank account and spending the money.

Our cases have noted that in order to uphold a conviction under Sec. 641, the government must have "title to, possession of, or control over" the funds involved. United States v. Johnson, 596 F.2d 842, 846 (9th Cir.1979). See Long, 706 F.2d at 1048. The government clearly had an ownership interest in the proceeds of each check described in the indictment. The Secretary of Transportation was a copayee of the check. By the terms of the security agreement with Faust, the proceeds of the check were payable to the Secretary for distribution by the Secretary to the Secretary and Tractug. The $50,000 payee clause specified that the insurance policy had been issued to Faust and the United States. See J. Appleman & J. Appleman, 5A Insurance Law and Practice Sec. 3331 at 122 (1970) (the person to whom a policy is issued and in whose name it stands is usually considered its legal owner). These facts prove that the proceeds of the check were a "thing of value" of the government within the meaning of Sec. 641.

Furthermore, this court has also looked to the amount of control the government has retained over funds when seeking to determine whether the funds are government funds within the purview of Sec. 641. See United States v. Von Stephens, 774 F.2d 1411, 1413 (9th Cir.1985); Long, 706 F.2d at 1049-50; Johnson, 596 F.2d at 844-47. Here the government had substantial control over both the tugboats that were being built with Title XI funds and the insurance loss payments. The financing, construction, and operation of the tugboats was governed by the security agreement between Faust and the government. This document addressed numerous issues in detail. Furthermore, 46 C.F.R. Part 298 codified the restrictions imposed on Faust which were intended to protect the government's interest. See, e.g., 46 C.F.R. Sec. 298.40 (1987) (governing defaults, remedies and reporting requirements of ship operator); 46 C.F.R. Sec. 298.41(b) (1987) (authorizing Secretary of Transportation to seize and foreclose vessels in event of default). The government also maintained tight control over the insurance. See, e.g., 46 C.F.R. Sec. 298.32(b)(6) (1987).

Faust relies on cases which require a showing that the government "suffered a property loss" in order to support a conviction under Sec. 641. See Long, 706 F.2d at 1048; United States v. Collins, 464 F.2d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.1972). However, neither of the cases cited addressed the point which Faust seeks to support. In Collins, a defendant wrongly deposited a city treasurer's warrant in an account controlled by defendant. The warrant was charged against an account in which the Department of Labor had deposited funds for a city program. The defendant later wrote a check against the account which he controlled, and a bank honored the check. Collins, 464 F.2d at 1164-65. The court concluded that the converted funds did not constitute federal government property because the warrant was a city warrant. Id. at 1165. Thus, the issue was the federal nature of the funds. Obviously a property loss had been sustained. See also Long, 706 F.2d at 1048-50 (issue was whether meat which was bought by the government but diverted to defendants before delivery to Fort Lewis was government property). Furthermore, Collins has subsequently been distinguished on the grounds that the federal government in Collins did not retain sufficient control over the federal funds. Johnson, 596 F.2d at 846.

More on point is Ailsworth v. United States, 448 F.2d 439 (9th Cir.1971). In that case a defendant was employed at a Naval supply depot. He had heard that copper could be valuable for salvage. He intended to find out how valuable the copper was, by selling one or two pieces while hiding a pallet full of copper plates until after he had determined whether it was worthwhile to sell it. He was apprehended before he had sold the balance of the copper. The value of the pieces sold was less than $100, but the pallet full of copper plates was worth substantially more than $100. The defendant was convicted of felony theft under Sec. 641 for theft of more than $100 of government property. Id. at 440-41. The question in Ailsworth was whether by hiding the pallets of copper the defendant exercised control over them while intending to steal them. If so, it was no defense that the pallets never left the government's enclosure, nor that the defendant could have changed his mind and decided not to steal them. The court held that by hiding the copper pallets the defendant intended to steal government property within the meaning of Sec. 641. The court reasoned that Sec. 641 requires only an intent to appropriate government property "to a use inconsistent with the owner's rights and benefits." Id. at 442.

We find this reasoning persuasive. By cutting corners and depositing a check which was payable both to Faust and to the Secretary of Transportation, Faust willfully appropriated the proceeds of the check to a use inconsistent with the substantial rights and benefits of the government which was an owner of the proceeds. Faust intentionally deprived the government of the rights of supervision and control upon which the government insisted in originally approving the loans. Even if some of the proceeds eventually would have been distributed to Faust (and it is unclear that this is the case), Faust without consent usurped the government's control of the proceeds. This conduct was clearly in violation of the agreements and of the payee term of the checks. As Justice Holmes stated long ago, "[m]en must turn square corners when they deal with the Government." Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana R.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143, 41 S.Ct. 55, 56, 65 L.Ed. 188 (1920).2

There was sufficient evidence to convict Faust of violating Sec. 641.

B. Section 495 (forgery).3

Faust also contends that the government failed to prove that there was sufficient evidence to convict him of forgery. Faust attacks the forgery convictions on two fronts. First, Faust argues that the forgery convictions cannot stand because the government failed to prove that Faust defrauded the government out of money or property. Second, Faust argues that the government made out at best a case of fraudulent agency endorsement, not forgery.

1. Intent to defraud the government.

Faust contends that his convictions for forgery must be reversed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987). In McNally, the Court considered the mail fraud statute's prohibition on "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (1982). The Court held that the statute did not prohibit schemes to defraud individuals out of their intangible rights. Rather, the Court held that the statute prohibited only schemes to obtain money or property. The use of the disjunctive "or" was meant to make clear that "the statute reached false promises and misrepresentations as to the future as well as other frauds involving money or property." McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2881.

Faust argues that a similar construction should be used to interpret the language of Sec. 495. The statute describes in the disjunctive the crime of forging, which requires a "purpose of obtaining or receiving ... [a] sum of money," and the crime of uttering, which requires an "intent to defraud the United States."

However, McNally does not involve or even discuss Sec. 495. In McNally, the Court was forced to distinguish several earlier cases which had interpreted a statute prohibiting conspiracies "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." Id. at 2881 & n. 8, distinguishing Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 44 S.Ct. 511, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924) (construing predecessor of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371). In Hammerschmidt, the Court had construed the words "to defraud" to include not only schemes to "cheat the Government out of property or money" but also plans "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188, 44 S.Ct. at 512. The McNally Court also distinguished statutes which protect the government alone from those which also protect the citizens at large. McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2881 n. 8. Considerations in the former type of statute exist which justify a broader scope. Id., citing Curley v. United States, 130 F. 1 (1st Cir.1904). The crime of uttering as codified in Sec. 495 protects only the government. Thus, it prohibits all attempts to interfere with or obstruct lawful government functions by circulating dishonest written material with criminal intent and knowledge of its falsity. Faust's actions clearly fall within this broad proscription.

Moreover, even if the crime of uttering requires an intent to defraud the United States of property, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Faust violated the statute. In McNally, the Court noted that the phrase "to defraud" "is to be interpreted broadly insofar as property rights are concerned." McNally, 107 S.Ct. at 2879-80, citing Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S.Ct. 508, 40 L.Ed. 709 (1896). Faust's intent to appropriate the proceeds of the check to a use inconsistent with the substantial rights and benefits of the government was an intent to defraud the United States of a property right as contemplated by Durland and McNally.

2. Agency endorsement.

In Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962), the Supreme Court analyzed Sec. 495 and concluded that the statute "does not embrace a purported, but misrepresented, agency endorsement." Id. at 652, 82 S.Ct. at 1401, citing Selvidge v. United States, 290 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.1961). See also Wright v. United States, 172 F.2d 310, 311 (9th Cir.1949) ("the genuine making of a writing for the purpose of defrauding another is not forgery"), cited with approval in Gilbert, 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1403. In Gilbert, Milo Gilbert was an attorney representing Daniel and Charline Bartfield. A check had been made out to "Daniel H & Charlene [sic ] R. Bartfield c/o R Milo Gilbert." Gilbert endorsed the checks by signing the Bartfields' names, and then signing "R. Milo Gilbert, Trustee" underneath their names. Id. at 651, 82 S.Ct. at 1400. The court held that this agency endorsement, even if fraudulent and perhaps criminal, did not fall within the scope of the forgery statute. Id. at 652, 658-59, 82 S.Ct. at 1400, 1403-04. Gilbert is another way of saying that all forgeries are fraud, but not all frauds are forgeries.

Gilbert supports the defense to the false endorsement of the first check which had been initialed (Count 1). Faust's failure to use any qualifying adjective before his initials is not significant. See Asher v. United States, 480 F.2d 580, 583 (6th Cir.1973). Neither is it significant that Faust's conduct undoubtedly violated other laws. He was charged in the count with forgery. Faust signed the words "Secretary of Transportation" rather than signing the name of the Secretary and he placed his initials next to this signature. These facts represented that Faust was signing as a purported agent of the Secretary, however fraudulent the representation of agency may have been. See id. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence proves evil intent and false pretense but does not prove forgery with regard to the first check.

The two checks which Faust endorsed as "Secretary of Transportation" and which he did not initial present a harder question (Counts 3 and 5). On the one hand, there is no representation of agency on the face of the check, as there was in Gilbert and Asher. On the other hand, in offering a check endorsed with the words "Secretary of Transportation," Faust did represent either that the Secretary of Transportation had herself signed the check, or that an agent of the Secretary had signed it. However, there is no indication on the check that Faust had signed the check as an agent of the Secretary. Faust's conduct thus amounted at least to a forgery of an agency endorsement. His defense that it was a fraudulent agency endorsement is no defense. A forged endorsement is also a forgery. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to support convictions of forgery on these counts.

In light of Gilbert, we vacate the conviction on Count 1. There was, however, sufficient evidence to uphold the convictions on Counts 3 and 5.

Faust contends that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury according to his theory of the case constitutes reversible error. Faust's theory of defense on the embezzlement charge rested, at least in part, on a contention that he acted in good faith. Good faith, in general, constitutes a complete defense to any crime which requires fraudulent intent. See, e.g., United States v. Ammons, 464 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir.) (quoting a jury instruction which stated that good faith was a complete defense), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 988, 93 S.Ct. 343, 34 L.Ed.2d 253 (1972). Thus, Faust requested a jury instruction entitled "No Intent to Defraud." This request was denied.4

Faust states, correctly, that it is "reversible error to refuse a charge on a defense theory for which there is an evidentiary foundation and which, if believed by the jury, would be legally sufficient to render the accused innocent." United States v. Lewis, 592 F.2d 1282, 1285 (5th Cir.1979). However, a defendant is not entitled to any particular form of an instruction so long as the instructions given fairly and adequately cover his theories of defense. United States v. Solomon, 825 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 782, 98 L.Ed.2d 868 (1988). The trial court has broad discretion in tailoring the precise language of jury instructions and even " '[i]mperfectly formulated jury instructions will serve as a basis for overturning a conviction only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.' " Id., quoting United States v. Hayes, 794 F.2d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1289, 94 L.Ed.2d 146 (1987).

Faust first contends that the court erred in denying his requested instruction on agency. The court properly refused to give an agency instruction because there was no indication of agency on the endorsements in the checks that were the subject of Counts 3 and 5;5 nor was there any testimony that Faust was actually an agent, or even reasonably believed that he was an agent, of the Secretary of Transportation. See Jolly v. United States, 411 F.2d 618, 619 (9th Cir.1969); see also United States v. Gilbreath, 452 F.2d 992, 993 (5th Cir.1971).

The trial court's instructions on embezzlement and forgery adequately covered the elements of good faith. The instructions clearly required the jury to find that Faust knowingly and willfully embezzled or converted the property before they could find him guilty. This instruction precluded the possibility that the jury could have convicted Faust of embezzlement despite any belief that Faust acted in good faith. See United States v. Green, 745 F.2d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir.1984) (a defendant is not entitled to a separate good faith instruction when the court gives an adequate instruction on specific intent), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 925, 106 S.Ct. 259, 88 L.Ed.2d 266 (1985).

We similarly conclude that the trial court's instruction on forgery adequately addressed the issue of authority. The instructions required the jury to find that the endorsement was "written or signed without the payee's permission or authority." This was adequate to insure that the jury would not find Faust guilty if it believed, as Faust argued, that one Gerald Neuman had given him authority to endorse the check. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the particular instruction on authority which Faust requested. See Solomon, 825 F.2d at 1295.

Faust protests the admission of two letters under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The first was a letter written by Mustang Power Inc., a marine supply company, in which an estimate was given for ship generators. Faust altered the letter, as shown by his handwriting on a copy of the original letter. Faust photocopied the letterhead, drafted a new invoice and forged the signature of the Mustang Power salesman. Although Faust did not recall whether he had created the invoice, he explained that if he had done so, it would have been to speed up the delivery of equipment and payment thereon. The evidence was clearly relevant to his state of mind and contradicted his professions of good faith or mistake.

The second item was a redraft of a letter originally written by Thomas Bower to Larry Cantell. Faust had intercepted the original letter. He then rewrote it, forged Bower's signature and mailed the correspondence.6

Faust contends that admission of these letters was error in three respects. First, he argues that the government failed to meet the foundational requirements of Rule 404(b). Second, he argues the court failed to perform the balancing analysis required by Rule 403. Third, he contends that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value.

We review the admission of such evidence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. McKoy, 771 F.2d 1207, 1214 (9th Cir.1985) (Rule 404); United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir.1982) (Rule 403).

A. Mustang Power letter.

Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion. United States v. Bradshaw, 690 F.2d 704, 708 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210, 103 S.Ct. 3543, 77 L.Ed.2d 1392 (1983). However, evidence of extrinsic acts must be relevant to an actual issue in the case. United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475, 1479 (9th Cir.1985). The trial court ruled that the government had satisfied its burden of showing the relevance of the Mustang Power letter. Faust contends that knowledge, awareness and lack of accident were not contested issues in this case. Rather, he argues the issue was good or bad faith. We are not impressed with this distinction.

A district court's decision to admit evidence under Rule 404(b) will be upheld on appeal if the evidence is admissible on any of the enumerated grounds. United States v. Green, 648 F.2d 587, 592 (9th Cir.1981). Faust defended his conduct in endorsing and depositing the checks at issue, on the specious grounds that he had authority to do so, or at least believed that he had such authority. In essence he claimed that his intentions were honorable. Thus, intent was clearly an issue; the forged letter was relevant to his intent to forge checks, and to the absence of mistake or accident in signing for the Secretary of Transportation.

Faust contends that the government's failure to show that he lacked authority to alter the Mustang Power letter rendered the evidence's relevance tenuous. See United States v. Hernandez-Miranda, 601 F.2d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir.1979). Faust relies on United States v. Peterson, 808 F.2d 969 (2d Cir.1987). In Peterson, the defendant was charged with knowingly possessing a check stolen from the mail (the Azapian check). Her defense was that she had never seen the check, did not endorse it and did not know it was stolen. The government was allowed to introduce the testimony of a handwriting expert that Peterson had endorsed a stolen check payable to Williams. The prosecutor represented that the government had information from Williams that she had never received the check. However, the government did not introduce any evidence to show that the Williams check was ever missing, stolen or deposited by Peterson. Id. at 971-73. The court of appeals reversed, noting among other things, that there was no evidence that Peterson was not authorized to endorse Williams' name. Id. at 975.

We are unpersuaded by Faust's citation of Peterson. Faust's conduct in manufacturing a wholly spurious invoice and signing the Mustang Power's salesman's name was more extensive than Peterson's conduct in endorsing the Williams check. Some gullible person might imagine a scenario in which Peterson could have had authority to endorse the Williams check. Moreover, unlike Peterson, the states of mind in altering the document and forging the signature are essentially the same. In Peterson, a forged endorsement on one check which might not even have been stolen, was offered to prove knowledge, not that another check was forged, but that it was stolen. Here by contrast, one forged signature was offered to prove that Faust operated in a manner that utilized forged signatures.

We conclude that the evidence was relevant and properly admitted under Rule 404(b). Even in the absence of an explicit record documenting the court's balancing of prejudice and probative value, Faust's conclusions about prejudice do not convince us that the letter's probative value was outweighed by its prejudice. On this record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence.

B. Cantrell letter.

Faust also argues that the Cantrell letter was improperly admitted. His argument on this point is less convincing than his argument on the Mustang Power letter. Here, evidence of lack of authority was clear--Bower testified that he had never given Faust authority to sign his name. Faust argues, however, that forgery of a signature in a letter sent in a "commercial dispute" is irrelevant to the forgery of a signature on a check. He contends that the former does not necessarily entail the essential element of criminal forgery, an intent to defraud. However, the Cantrell letter was not introduced merely to show intent to defraud; it was also introduced to rebut Faust's defense that he had authority to endorse the check, or mistakenly believed that he had such authority. The evidence was relevant on this point.

We conclude that the court properly admitted the Cantrell letter under Rule 404(b). Nor are we swayed by Faust's further allegations of prejudice. The prejudice was of Faust's own making. Forgeries tend to embarrass forgers. We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in admitting this evidence.

Faust contends that evidence regarding his state of mind was improperly excluded. Specifically, Faust refers to the government's attempt to prove that he signed a loss payee clause in late September 1982, before the insurance check was issued. To this end, the government introduced a copy of an endorsement which was signed by Faust and countersigned by Dean Steeger, a MOAC employee. Faust argues that he did not sign this loss payee clause until August 1983. At that time, he claims he was being blackmailed by MOAC and forced to backdate the endorsement or else risk the chance that loss payments would be withheld. He further testified that when he signed the original, he crossed out the date next to Steeger's name. The original was not produced by the government. Faust postulates that the acquittals on Counts 4 and 6 (involving checks under $50,000) indicate that the date on which Faust signed the endorsement was a pivotal issue for the jury.

To support his testimony, Faust attempted to introduce a draft of a letter he proposed to send to Steeger protesting the newly endorsed payee clause. The letter was offered as circumstantial evidence of state of mind. The government objected to the exhibit as self-serving. The trial court refused to admit the letter, not on the government's grounds, but because Faust's beliefs had just been expressed to the jury. Faust asserts that the exclusion of this letter precluded him from corroborating his story as to what his state of mind was in August 1983.

A trial court's evidentiary ruling will be reversed only where there has been an abuse of discretion, and only if that evidentiary error would have more likely than not affected the verdict. United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir.1987).

Hearsay is admissible if it is a statement of the "declarant's then existing state of mind." Fed.R.Evid. 803(3). In order to determine admissibility under this rule a court must examine three factors: contemporaneousness, chance for reflection, and relevance. United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 578, 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980). Contemporaneousness is disputed. Depending on whose version of the facts is believed, Faust either drafted the letter soon after he was allegedly blackmailed into signing and postdating the endorsement or long after he had originally signed the endorsement. Although the evidence may be relevant in light of the fact that Faust was allowed to testify to all the facts contained in the letter, the draft itself was cumulative and its probative value slight.7

Faust's opportunity to reflect in drafting the letter, however, weighs heavily against admission. Rule 803(3) is related to the exceptions created by Rules 803(1) and (2), which allow statements of present sense impression and excited utterances. See Ponticelli, 622 F.2d at 991; Fed.R.Evid. 803(1), (2). The theory behind all three exceptions is that "[t]he greater the circumstances for misrepresentation, the less reliable is the declaration." Ponticelli, 622 F.2d at 991. The circumstances in this case allowed Faust to think long and hard before drafting the letter. Indeed, the fact that Faust went through several drafts indicates that he had ample time to reflect upon his statements. Thus, any evidence provided by the letter was unreliable, and the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it. Furthermore, given the fact that Faust was allowed to testify extensively about the content of the letter and his state of mind, we do not find that the admission of the letter would more likely than not have affected the verdict. See Emmert, 829 F.2d at 808.

The conviction on Count 1 is REVERSED. The convictions on Counts 2, 3 and 5 are AFFIRMED.

Section 641 provides, in pertinent part:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use ... or without authority ... disposes of any ... money[ ] or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made ... under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof....

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both....

The word "value" means face ... value....

18 U.S.C. Sec. 641 (1982).

We also find that Faust's reliance on United States v. Tana, 618 F.Supp. 1393 (S.D.N.Y.1985), is misplaced. Notwithstanding the fact that a district court decision from another circuit is not binding on this court, we find this case distinguishable from Tana. In that case, the court found that the government did not have a sufficient interest in window production equipment pledged as security for a government loan. Thus, theft of the equipment did not fall within the prohibition of Sec. 641. Id. at 1395. However, the court noted that if the government was able to demonstrate sufficient control over the assets underlying its security interest, the conversion would fall within Sec. 641. Id. at 1396. Thus, even under Tana the type of action involved here could be prosecuted under Sec. 641

Section 495 provides, in pertinent part:

Whoever falsely makes, alters, [or] forges ... any ... contract[ ] or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving ... any sum of money; or

Whoever utters ... as true any such false, forged [or] altered ... writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered [or] forged ...

Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 495 (1982).

The trial court's jury instruction on the embezzlement count included the following:

It is not necessary to prove that the Defendant knew that the Government owned the property at the time of the wrongful taking so long as it is established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Government did in fact own the money or property involved, that it had a value in excess of $100 and that the Defendant knowingly and willfully embezzled or converted it. (emphasis added)

The court's instructions on forgery including the following:

The term "forgery" means that the payee's endorsement on a check was written or signed without the payee's permission or authority.

* * *

To act with "intent to defraud" means to act knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive, ordinarily for the purpose of causing some financial loss to another or bringing about some financial gain to one's self.

An act is done knowingly if the defendant realized what he or she was doing and did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident. You may consider the evidence of the defendant's acts and words, along with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly.

Because we have vacated the conviction on Count 1, we need not address whether the court erred in not giving an agency instruction with reference to that count

The government also sought to introduce a memorandum written by Bower which admonished Faust for having forged his signature without permission on the Cantell letter. The court denied admission of this memorandum

Faust relies on United States v. Parry, 649 F.2d 292 (5th Cir.1981), in asserting that the letter was admissible. In Parry, the defendant did not deny that he participated in the drug transaction as charged but argued that he proceeded upon the good faith belief that he was working for government agents. To corroborate his testimony, the defendant sought to introduce his mother's testimony as to a conversation whereby the defendant told her that he knew the true identity of the agents. The trial court, sua sponte, ruled that the mother's testimony constituted excludable hearsay. The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the out-of-court utterance was intended as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the existence of a fact, rather than as testimonial evidence of the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, it should have been admitted. Id. at 295

Faust, however, did not offer the testimony of a third party who had heard his statement of his belief. This was not a case of exclusion of corroborative testimony. Faust did not attempt to present the testimony of anyone who could testify that Faust had made a declaration of his then existing state of mind. The draft letter adds little, if any, corroboration to Faust's testimony to the same facts. Thus, Parry is distinguishable.


text:
Paʻauilo is a census-designated place (CDP) in Hawaiʻi County, Hawaiʻi, United States. The population was 571 at the 2000 census.

Administrative Law Lawyers In Paauilo Hawaii

What is administrative law?

Administrative Law involves compliance with and challenges to rules, regulations, and orders of local, state, and federal government departments. Administrative law attorneys may represent clients before agencies like the workers compensation appeals boards, school board disciplinary hearings and federal agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. Administrative attorneys help negotiate the bureaucracy when interacting with the government to do things as varied as receiving a license or permit or preparing and presenting a defense to disciplinary or enforcement actions.

Answers to administrative law issues in Hawaii

Administrative law is law made by or about the executive branch agencies, departments, the President (at the federal...

The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 made significant changes to the Informants Reward Program under the False...