text:
OpinionSummariesCase details
People v. Floyd
People v. Yearwood
The Act was added by the initiative process. Ballot pamphlet arguments have been recognized as a proper…
356 Citing Cases
Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE RENE FLOYD, Defendant and…
Date published: Jul 21, 2003
31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003)
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885
72 P.3d 820
finding no equal protection violation in the expressly prospective application of Proposition 36 providing for mandatory probation for some convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses
Summary of this case from People v. Kozich
See 25 Summaries
No. S105225
Filed July 21, 2003
Appeal from the Superior Court of Kern County, No. 80646A, Stephen P. Gildner, Judge, Ct.App. 5 F037295. Review Granted 95 Cal.App.4th 1092.
Conrad Petermann, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Marylou Hilberg for Tommy Lee Fryman as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross and Patrick J. Whalen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BAXTER, J.
(1) In this case we must decide whether Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to the act's effective date of July 1, 2001, but whose judgments were not yet final as of that date. We conclude that the act's saving clause — which states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively" (Prop. 36, § 8, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) (Proposition 36), reprinted at 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code (2003 supp.) foll. § 1210, p. 221) — indicates the act was not intended to apply retroactively to this subset of cases. We also reject defendant's alternative claim that the failure to accord retroactive effect to Proposition 36 would violate his state and federal right to equal protection. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeal.
On April 30, 2000, Bakersfield police responded to the reported natural death of defendant's long-term girlfriend. Defendant was distraught and crying. At some point, while standing near the body of his girlfriend, defendant began a sustained bout of coughing. Officer Damacio Diaz saw a small plastic baggie fly out of defendant's mouth and land on the deceased. As soon as it landed, defendant grabbed the baggie and shoved it underneath the body. Officer Diaz retrieved the baggie, which contained 0.25 grams of cocaine.
A jury convicted defendant of possession of cocaine (Health Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and found he had five prior felony convictions within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law: two attempted robberies and an assault with a deadly weapon causing great bodily injury on October 21, 1981; a burglary on October 30, 1984; and a burglary on January 7, 1985. On November 9, 2000, the trial court sentenced defendant to a third strike term of 25 years to life.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed in an opinion published in part.
On November 7, 2000, two days before defendant was sentenced, California voters passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. Proposition 36 amended state law to require that certain adult drug offenders receive probation, conditioned on participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program, instead of receiving a prison term or probation without drug treatment. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1.)
(2) Under new Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (a), a defendant convicted of a nonviolent drug possession offense "shall" receive probation, provided the defendant is not rendered ineligible under subdivision (b). A court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation for defendants eligible under the statute. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (a).) The new law also created the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund, with an initial $60 million appropriated for the 2000-2001 fiscal year and $120 million appropriated for each of the following five years. (Health Saf. Code, §§ 11999.4, 11999.5.)
In uncodified section 8 (Section 8), entitled Effective Date, the initiative stated: "Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively." (Prop. 36, § 8, reprinted at 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code, supra, foll. § 1210, p. 221.)
Defendant contends that because Proposition 36 is an ameliorative statute and his conviction is not yet final, he is entitled to the initiative's benefits under our rule in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948] ( Estrada).
(3) Under the Estrada rule, an amendatory statute lessening punishment is presumed to apply in all cases not yet reduced to final judgment as of the amendatory statute's effective date. ( Id. at p. 744.) In the alternative, he contends that it would violate principles of equal protection to deny him the ameliorative benefits of the initiative. We reject both contentions.
The parties agree that Proposition 36 ameliorates the punishment for those persons convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses who are eligible for its programs and that defendant might be eligible for those programs if Proposition 36 applies here. Defendant argues that Proposition 36 should apply to him because his conviction was not yet final at the time Proposition 36 became effective. He relies on Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at page 744, where we held that "[i]f the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final then, in our opinion, it, and not the old statute in effect when the prohibited act was committed, applies." The Attorney General, on the other hand, points out that Estrada does not apply "when there is a saving clause" ( id. at p. 747) and finds such a saving clause in Section 8 of the initiative, which states, "Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively."
Whether Proposition 36 applies here requires us to "ascertain the legislative intent — did the [voters] intend the old or new statute to apply?" ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 744; People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 791 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 88, 910 P.2d 1380] ( Nasalga) (plur. opn. of Werdegar, J.); id. 12 Cal.4th at p. 799 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.).) Since the voters legally and constitutionally could have chosen either one ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 744), we must decide which one was intended. (4) We begin with section 3 of the Penal Code. That section embodies the general rule of statutory construction that "when there is nothing to indicate a contrary intent in a statute it will be presumed that the Legislature intended the statute to operate prospectively and not retroactively." ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 746.) We found a contrary intent in Estrada where a criminal statute had been amended to lessen the punishment after the prohibited act was committed but before final judgment had been entered in the case. Although the Legislature did not expressly state whether the old or new statute should apply in that circumstance, we found one consideration of "paramount importance" ( id. at p. 744): "`A legislative mitigation of the penalty for a particular crime represents a legislative judgment that the lesser penalty or the different treatment is sufficient to meet the legitimate ends of the criminal law.'" ( Id. at p. 745.) From this, "[i]t is an inevitable inference that the Legislature must have intended that the new statute imposing the new lighter penalty now deemed to be sufficient should apply to every case to which it constitutionally could apply. The amendatory act imposing the lighter punishment can be applied constitutionally to acts committed before its passage provided the judgment convicting defendant of the act is not final." ( Ibid.) Thus, "[ i] f there is no saving clause . . . the rule of construction that statutes are normally to be interpreted to operate prospectively and not retroactively (a rule embodied in section 3 of the Penal Code) has been rebutted." ( Id. at p. 747, italics added.)
(5) The problem for defendant is that Section 8 of Proposition 36 does include a saving clause, which states that the act "shall be applied prospectively." We need not range far to discover what "prospectively" means, since we have used the term ourselves with regularity. (See People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 845-846 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 57, 705 P.2d 380].) We used the term in Estrada to refer to the general rule of construction, embodied in Penal Code section 3, that an amended statute should not be applied retroactively to cases not yet reduced to final judgment. ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 746-747.) We used the term in Nasalga for the same purpose: "The rule in Estrada, of course, is not implicated where the Legislature clearly signals its intent to make the amendment prospective, by the inclusion of an express saving clause or its equivalent." ( Nasalga, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 793 (plur. opn. of Werdegar, J.), italics added.)
(6) We therefore conclude that this language, at least when read in isolation, reveals an intent to avoid the Estrada rule. ( In re Pedro T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1041, 1049 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 884 P.2d 1022] ["what is required is that the Legislature demonstrate its intention with sufficient clarity that a reviewing court can discern and effectuate it"]; see Nasalga, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 793 (plur. opn. of Werdegar, J.).)
As defendant points out, however, the two main clauses in Section 8 cannot be read in isolation but are preceded by an introductory clause: "Except as otherwise provided. . . ." Defendant reasons that the phrased exception necessarily refers to the Estrada rule and concludes that Proposition 36 does apply prospectively except to the extent that Estrada provides for retroactive application. We do not agree with defendant's strained interpretation of Section 8. First, it is not entirely clear the introductory clause even modifies Section 8's second main clause — "its provisions shall be applied prospectively" — rather than just the first main clause — "the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001." (See Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1114 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564] [applying the "last antecedent rule"].) After all, the provisions of the act did become effective July 1, 2001, except as otherwise provided in new Health and Safety Code section 11999.5, which stated that $60 million shall be appropriated from the General Fund to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund "[u]pon passage of this act." (See In re Scoggins (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 650, 656 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 508].) Second, even if the introductory clause were to extend to the second main clause, the contemplated exceptions to prospectivity appear to be the relatively narrow ones provided elsewhere in the act. As defendant concedes, this exception encompasses those on probation or parole from convictions that well predate July 1, 2001 — i.e., those who were on probation for nonviolent drug possession offenses or on parole (but not for a serious or violent felony) on the effective date of the act and who were subsequently found to have violated probation or parole by committing a nonviolent drug possession offense or by violating a drug-related condition of probation or parole. (Pen. Code, §§ 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(D)-(F) [probation], 3063.1, subd. (d)(3)(C), (D) [parole].)
(7) That Proposition 36 applies to these individuals whose convictions predate the initiative's effective date, however, is not proof that it applies to all persons whose convictions predate the effective date. Third, defendant's proffered interpretation gives no effect to the statement that the act's provisions shall be applied prospectively. According to defendant, Section 8 "merely defines a nonexclusive class of defendants [who] are eligible for its provisions." If we were to agree with defendant, however, the statement that the act's provisions "shall be applied prospectively" would be drained of meaning, since the voters could have accomplished the same result by omitting the clause entirely. That is, in the absence of the saving clause, we would have applied the Estrada rule and extended the benefits of Proposition 36 to all those whose convictions were not yet final as well as to those whose convictions postdated the act's effective date. We cannot embrace an interpretation that makes Section 8 mere surplusage. ( Cooley v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 228, 249 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 177, 57 P.3d 654].)
Defendant's alternate contention, that he is "convicted" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1210.1, subdivision (b)(1), only when his conviction becomes final, is merely a repackaging of the preceding argument. Were we to construe section 1210.1 to apply to all those whose convictions are not yet final, we would again be unable to accord any meaning to the provision in Section 8 that the act shall be applied prospectively. To address that lacuna, defendant suggests that the term "prospectively" was meant "to affirm that [the act's] provisions would not be applied to those whose convictions had become final since the law routinely excludes those whose convictions are final from the effects of new legislation." However, if it is the "`universal common-law rule'" ( People v. Rossi (1976) 18 Cal.3d 295, 304 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 64, 555 P.2d 1313]) and perhaps a constitutional limitation (see Estrada, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745) that ameliorative statutes not be applied to judgments that are already final, it is unlikely the voters would have perceived a need to reiterate this widespread and long-standing rule in a separate, uncodified section. We conclude instead that the initiative means what it says, i.e., that except as otherwise provided, the act shall be applied prospectively.
(8) We find further support for our plain-language construction in the fact that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 initiative, which was adopted by the voters on November 7, 2000, and would ordinarily have taken effect the next day (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a)), did not take effect until July 1, 2001. "Postponement of the effective date for an act indicates that it should have only prospective application." (2 Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction (6th ed. 2001) § 41:4, p. 410; accord, Time Warner Cable v. Doyle (7th Cir. 1994) 66 F.3d 867, 879-880, fn. 16 ["postponement of the effective date of a regulation evinces an intent that it be prospective"]; U.S. v. Brebner (9th Cir. 1991) 951 F.2d 1017, 1022 [six-month delay in the effective date of a statute lessening punishment indicates that it has no retroactive effect]; Wright v. Director, FEMA (11th Cir. 1990) 913 F.2d 1566, 1572, fn. 13 [same]; Dion v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (1st Cir. 1987) 823 F.2d 669, 672 ["the thirteen-month postponement by Congress of the effective date of the statute shows a clear intent to obviate any retrospective application"]; Eastwind, Inc. v. State (Alaska 1997) 951 P.2d 844, 847 [delayed effective date "provides further support for the proposition that the 1993 amendments were intended to have prospective application only"]; People v. Ramsey (Ill. 2000) 192 Ill.2d 154 [ 735 N.E.2d 533, 548, 248 Ill.Dec. 882] ["Courts have held that the legislature's postponement of an effective date is direct evidence that a retroactive application was not intended"]; Deutsch v. M.P. Catherwood (N.Y. 1973) 31 N.Y.2d 487 [ 341 N.Y.S.2d 600, 602, 294 N.E.2d 193] ["If the amendments were to have retroactive effect, there would have been no need for any postponement"]; cf. Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th 197, 223 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 407, 19 P.3d 1148] [discussing the postponement of the statute's operative date].) The inference seems inescapable that the voters wanted to ensure an orderly transition by an immediate appropriation of $60 million to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund to expand existing treatment programs and create new ones before their caseloads increased — a sequence that depended on prospective application of the act.
Our construction is also supported by the ballot argument distributed to voters for the November 2000 General Election. Proponents of the measure explained that "[i]f Proposition 36 passes, nonviolent drug offenders convicted for the first or second time after 7/1/2001, will get mandatory, court-supervised, treatment instead of jail." (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) argument in favor of Prop. 36, p. 26, italics added.)
Finally, we do not agree that the rule of lenity requires us to construe Proposition 36 to apply retroactively to defendant. The rule of lenity applies "`only if the court can do no more than guess what the legislative body intended.'" ( People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 58 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1].) That situation arises when "`two reasonable interpretations of the same provision stand in relative equipoise, i.e., that resolution of the statute's ambiguities in a convincing manner is impracticable.'" ( Ibid.) For the reasons stated above, we do not believe defendant's interpretation is reasonable. Hence, the rule of lenity cannot compel a different result.
Defendant argues, in the alternative, that denying him the benefits of Proposition 36 violates his right to equal protection under the state and federal Constitutions. By creating two classes of nonviolent drug offenders — those convicted before July 1, 2001, whose judgments are not yet final, and those convicted after July 1, 2001 — Section 8, he claims, treats two similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. In defendant's view, no compelling state interest justifies the disparity in treatment.
Defendant has not cited a single case, in this state or any other, that recognizes an equal protection violation arising from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense. Numerous courts, however, have rejected such a claim — including this court. ( Baker v. Superior Court (1984) 35 Cal.3d 663, 668 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 293, 677 P.2d 219] ["`A refusal to apply a statute retroactively does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment'"], quoting People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, 532 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265].) "The Legislature properly may specify that such statutes are prospective only, to assure that penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written." ( In re Kapperman (1974) 11 Cal.3d 542, 546 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 97, 522 P.2d 657] ( Kapperman); see also People v. Willis (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 952, 956 [ 149 Cal.Rptr. 301] [acknowledging that "all effective dates of statutes are somewhat arbitrary," but rejecting equal protection claim]; People v. Superior Court ( Gonzales) (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 134, 142 [ 144 Cal.Rptr. 89] [same].) The voters have the same prerogative. (See Rossi v. Brown (1995) 9 Cal.4th 688, 696, fn. 2 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 363, 889 P.2d 557].)
(9) Moreover, Estrada itself recognized that when the Legislature has amended a statute to lessen the punishment, its determination as to which statute should apply to all convictions not yet final, " either way, would have been legal and constitutional." ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 744, italics added; In re Bender (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 380, 388 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 801] ["punishment-lessening statutes given prospective application do not violate equal protection"]; People v. Henderson (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 475, 488, fn. 5 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 20] ["Retroactive application of a punishment-mitigating statute is not a question of constitutional right but of legislative intent"]; Talley v. Municipal Court (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 109, 114 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 743] ["The short answer is Estrada, . . . which stated lucidly that the Legislature is not compelled to give sentencing changes retroactive effect"].) That the Legislature's choice, either way, would be constitutional is the foundation for our oft-repeated statement that, in this type of circumstance, the problem "is one of trying to ascertain the legislative intent — did the Legislature intend the old or new statute to apply?" ( Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 744; Nasalga, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 791 (plur. opn. of Werdegar, J.), quoting Estrada; In re Pedro T., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1045 [same]; People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66, 76 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 199, 450 P.2d 591] [same].) Defendant's equal protection argument presumes that the Estrada rule is constitutionally compelled. As we have stated repeatedly, it is not.
Other jurisdictions are in accord. "[A] reduction of sentences only prospectively from the date a new sentencing statute takes effect is not a denial of equal protection." (16B C.J.S. (1985) Constitutional Law, § 777, pp. 666-667; Meeks v. Jago (6th Cir. 1976) 548 F.2d 134, 138 [no denial of equal protection occurred "as long as sentence was imposed according to the statute applicable at the time of sentence"]; see Comerford v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1st Cir. 1956) 233 F.2d 294, 295 ["The same situation might arise when a legislature prospectively reduced the maximum penalty for a crime, for then a prisoner sentenced to the maximum penalty before the effective date of the act would serve a longer imprisonment than one sentenced to the maximum term thereafter. Yet we are not aware of any violation of the constitutional rights of either group of prisoners in that situation"].) The Illinois Supreme Court, for example, rejected an analogous claim when the state approved a new comprehensive sentencing act that took effect after defendant was sentenced but "`his case ha[d] not been finally adjudicated on appeal.'" ( People v. Grant (Ill. 1978) 71 Ill.2d 551 [ 377 N.E.2d 4, 9, 17 Ill.Dec. 814], italics omitted.) Grant, like defendant here, argued "that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between persons sentenced after the effective date of the act and those, sentenced prior to that date, whose appeals are still pending." ( Ibid.) The Illinois Supreme Court replied, as we did in Estrada, that "the ability to elect to be sentenced under a law enacted after the date of the commission of a crime is not a constitutional right but a benefit conferred solely by statute. It is not unconstitutional for the legislature to confer such benefit only prospectively, neither is it unconstitutional for the legislature to specify `a classification between groups differently situated, so long as a reasonable basis for the distinction exists.' [Citation.] In this instance, the legislature distinguished between those defendants, on the one hand, who had not yet been accorded any sentencing hearings prior to the cut-off date, and those, on the other hand, whose sentences, already imposed, would require remandments for additional sentencing hearings. We find this to be a reasonable basis for distinction and, therefore, no constitutional denial of equal protection." ( Ibid.; accord, State v. Ferrell (1980) 126 Ariz. 1 [ 612 P.2d 52, 53]; Fleming v. Zant (1989) 259 Ga. 687 [ 386 S.E.2d 339, 341] [the amendment "distinguishes between cases that have been tried and those that have not. This classification is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The legislature had to choose some effective date"]; Carter v. State (Ind. 1987) 512 N.E.2d 158, 170 ["Because Carter was charged, tried, and sentenced before the amendment went into effect, it was not a denial of equal protection to sentence Carter according to the statute in effect at that time"]; State ex rel. v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1997) 78 OhioSt.3d 186 [1997 Ohio 223, 677 N.E.2d 347, 349]; Burch v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999) 994 S.W.2d 137, 139; Delgado v. State (Tex.App. 1995) 908 S.W.2d 317, 319; Abdo v. Commonwealth (1977) 218 Va. 473 [ 237 S.E.2d 900, 903-904] ["The fact that the legislature reduces the penalty for a crime after a prisoner is sentenced, and he does not benefit from that mitigation of punishment, does not constitute an arbitrary classification or deny the prisoner equal protection of the law"].)
As stated above, defendant has not cited a single case to the contrary. The closest he can come is Kapperman, supra, 11 Cal.3d 542, in which we reviewed the constitutionality of a newly enacted provision concerning presentence custody credit that applied only to those persons delivered to the custody of the Director of Corrections after the effective date of the section. Kapperman, who was delivered to the director's custody before that date, argued successfully that this limitation violated his right to equal protection. Before we addressed his claim, however, we made an "[i]nitial" observation: "we point out that this case is not governed by cases (e.g., In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740, 744 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948] ) involving the application to previously convicted offenders of statutes lessening the punishment for a particular offense. The Legislature properly may specify that such statutes are prospective only, to assure that penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written. [Citation.] The People herein do not contend that retroactive application of section 2900.5 would interfere with the foregoing public purpose." ( Kapperman, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 546.)
(10) This case, by contrast, does involve a statute lessening punishment for particular offenses, and retroactive effect of the statute would interfere with the foregoing public purpose.
We also find support from the State of Washington, which, like California, has enacted a treatment-oriented program as an alternative to mere confinement, entitled the Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative. ( State v. Kane (2000) 101 Wn.App. 607 [ 5 P.3d 741, 742].) At the time Kane pleaded guilty to his drug offense, he was ineligible for the alternative sentence because of his prior felony convictions. The Washington Legislature then amended the eligibility requirements prior to the sentencing hearing, but the appellate court, in accordance with the Washington saving statute, determined that the amendment did not apply to Kane. ( Ibid.) In rejecting Kane's claim of an equal protection violation, the court observed that a contrary rule would encourage sentencing delays and other manipulations "`with unfair results overall. . . . [W]e see nothing irrational in a legislative conclusion that individuals should be punished in accordance with the sanctions in effect at the time the offense was committed, a viewpoint encompassed by the savings statutes themselves.'" ( Id. at p. 746; accord, In re Pedro T., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 1047 [retroactive application "would provide a motive for delay and manipulation in criminal proceedings"].) Moreover, "an amendatory statute that substitutes treatment for time spent in prison may well require fiscal or administrative adjustments. The Legislature may have decided that such changes should be phased in gradually as new cases arise." ( Kane, supra, 5 P.3d at p. 746; In re DeLong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562, 569 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 385] ["Obviously, the implementation of Proposition 36 would require that treatment programs be in place by the time defendants were sentenced"]; see generally Baker v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 669 ["Nothing in these cases suggests, however, that the equal protection clause prohibits the Legislature from creating or abolishing a treatment program prospectively"].)
These concerns apply equally to the alternative drug offender sentencing scheme created by Proposition 36. Kapperman, like Kane, recognized as legitimate the legislative interest "that penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written." ( Kapperman, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 546.) Kapperman, like Kane, also recognized as legitimate the practical concerns associated with the transition from one sentencing scheme to another, such as resentencings. ( Id. at p. 549, fn. 8.) Resentencing numerous defendants was plainly a result the voters sought to avoid by according the statute prospective effect. In addition, the voters may not have wanted to encourage defendants to file meritless appeals designed simply to stretch out the time to finality. "[T]he 14th Amendment does not forbid statutes and statutory changes to have a beginning, and thus to discriminate between the rights of an earlier and later time." ( Sperry Hutchinson Co. v. Rhodes (1911) 220 U.S. 502, 505 [ 55 L.Ed. 561, 31 S.Ct. 490].) Therefore, defendant's equal protection claim must fail.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
George, C.J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., and Moreno, J., concurred.
BROWN, J., Dissenting.
For the reasons explained below, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the rule of lenity does not apply in this case. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 188.) In my view, when considered in its entirety, Proposition 36 may reasonably be construed to extend to defendants whose conviction for a nonviolent drug offense was not final as of July 1, 2001. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the majority takes an unnecessarily narrow assessment of the electorate's intent and in doing so fails to fully effectuate the express purpose of the initiative. I respectfully dissent.
The question here is whether defendant may invoke the principle of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745-748 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948], providing that, in the absence of a saving clause, ameliorative legislation applies retroactively to all convictions not yet final as of the effective date. The majority identifies the requisite saving clause as section 8, which states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively." (Prop. 36, § 8, as approved by the voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) (Proposition 36), reprinted at 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code (2003 supp.) foll. § 1210, p. 221.) Yet, the meaning of this section is hardly self-explanatory. Since prospective application is not qualified in relation to the date of offense or finality of conviction, it lacks the specificity generally required of an effective saving clause. (See, e.g., People v. Holland (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 795, 797 [ 190 Cal.Rptr. 552] [legislation specified ameliorative provisions "shall apply only to offenses committed on or after" particular date (italics omitted)]; People v. Superior Court ( Martin) (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 658, 663 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 563] [statute specified "`provisions of the bill shall not be construed to affect any person under commitment prior to the effective date of the bill'"]; Talley v. Municipal Court (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 109, 114 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 743] [statute contained express provision that it applied only to offenses committed after a date certain]; Pen. Code, § 1203.4, subd. (a) ["This subdivision shall apply to all applications . . . filed on or after November 23, 1970"]; see generally In re Estrada, at p. 747.) Accordingly, the scope of section 8 becomes a matter of discerning the electorate's intent, which can only be done by considering the larger context of Proposition 36.
Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated references to section 8 are to the uncodified version in Proposition 36.
The "Purpose and Intent" of Proposition 36 is set forth in section 3 of the initiative: "The People of the State of California hereby declare their purpose and intent in enacting this act to be as follows:
"(a) To divert from incarceration into community-based substance abuse treatment programs nonviolent defendants, probationers and parolees charged with simple drug possession or drug use offenses;
"(b) To halt the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the incarceration — and reincarceration — of nonviolent drug users who would be better served by community-based treatment; and
"(c) To enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crime and preserving jails and prison cells for serious and violent offenders, and to improve public health by reducing drug abuse and drug dependence through proven and effective drug treatment strategies." (Prop. 36, § 3, reprinted at 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code, supra, foll. § 1210, p. 221.)
Plainly, each of these goals is best served by maximizing the number of eligible defendants. Other provisions of Proposition 36 also support an expansive application. For example, if a defendant on probation for a nonviolent drug possession offense as of July 1, 2001 — that is, a probationer whose conviction is already final as of the effective date — violates probation, he or she may still be accorded the benefits of the initiative. (Pen. Code, § 1210.1, subd. (e)(3)(D).) Even a second violation of probation will not render a defendant ineligible. ( Id., subd. (e)(3)(E); see id., § 3063.1 [parolee eligibility]; see also Health Saf. Code, §§ 11999.5, 11999.6 [Prop. 36 funding cannot be used "to supplant funds from any existing fund source or mechanism currently used to provide substance abuse treatment"].) As the Court of Appeal in In re DeLong (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 562, 569 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 385], observed, "In view of Proposition 36's provisions extending it to defendants who were already on probation or on parole at the time the initiative took effect, no rationale appears to exclude from its wide reach the limited class of defendants who, as of the effective date, had been adjudged guilty and were awaiting sentencing." Given the legislative intent to remove certain nonviolent drug offenders from the criminal justice system not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of society as a whole through the reduction in incarceration costs and drug-related criminal activity, similar reasoning should apply to defendants awaiting finality of their convictions as of the effective date.
The fact that section 8 delayed the effective date of Proposition 36 almost eight months from the time of enactment does not undermine the conclusion the voters intended broad application. The sole reason for the postponement was practical: time was necessary to enable a sufficient number of treatment facilities to be licensed or certified. (See In re DeLong, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at pp. 569-570.) "Thus, the voters delayed the effective date to July 1, 2001, so that treatment facilities could be in place, not out of a desire to preserve the stricter sentencing scheme for nonviolent drug offenders for a few more months" ( id. at p. 570) or to limit unnecessarily the number of defendants eligible once the programs became operational. A defendant whose conviction was not final as of July 1, 2001, was still "in the system" and inclusion would not compromise the need for time to get treatment facilities functioning by that date. (Cf. In re Pedro T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1041, 1046 [ 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 884 P.2d 1022] [consideration of practical effect supports prospective application].)
Nor does this construction render section 8 surplusage. Given the reason for the delayed effective date, the voters could reasonably have wanted to exclude defendants whose convictions became final between November 7, 2000 and July 1, 2001. Under the rule of In re Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d 740, these defendants might make a claim to the initiative's amelioration. Without facilities fully operational, however, the difficulty of working them into the program could have been seen as outweighing any benefit. Therefore, as to this class of defendants the electorate designated the provisions prospective while preserving — again, under the rule of Estrada — the benefits for defendants whose conviction was not yet final as of July 1, 2001.
Nothing in the ballot arguments negates such a conclusion. The majority cites a statement by the proponents of Proposition 36 that "`[i]f Proposition 36 passes, nonviolent drug offenders convicted for the first or second time after 7/1/2001, will get mandatory, court-supervised treatment instead of jail.' [Citation.]" (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 187-188.) This single reference to the effective date is ambiguous at best, as is the Legislative Analyst's notation that the provisions of Proposition 36 are "effective July 1, 2001." (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) analysis of Prop. 36 by the Legis. Analyst, p. 23.) The effective date had no particular significance to the arguments for or against or in the Legislative Analyst's explanation of the initiative's salient changes in the law and fiscal impact. Rather, the emphasis throughout the ballot materials was on removing nonviolent drug offenders from the criminal justice system both to assist them in becoming drug free and, of equal importance, to save taxpayers millions of dollars otherwise required to incarcerate them. Moreover, "the term `conviction' [or `convicted'] has no fixed definition and has been interpreted by the courts of this state to have various meanings, depending upon the context in which the word is used." ( People v. Rhoads (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 56, 60 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 266]; see Boyll v. State Personnel Board (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1073-1074 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 717].) In at least one context, decisions of this court have held a defendant has not been finally convicted if an appeal is pending. ( In re Riccardi (1920) 182 Cal. 675, 681 [ 189 P. 694]; People v. Treadwell (1885) 66 Cal. 400, 401 [ 5 P. 686].)
The majority's insistence on adopting a narrow focus to determine the electorate's intent has rendered section 8 the "straightjacket" the court in Estrada warned against ( In re Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 746) — as this case precisely illustrates. Defendant was convicted of violating Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), for possessing one-quarter gram of cocaine. Because he had several prior convictions for serious or violent felonies, he was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. (See Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)(ii).) The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 36 explained that a year of drug treatment costs about $4,000 for each participant, while the yearly cost for a state prisoner is $24,000. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000) argument in favor of Prop. 36, p. 26.) Even one year's incarceration of defendant will far exceed the amount taxpayers would pay to divert him from the criminal justice system altogether. Since he will not be eligible for parole for many years, the actual cost will likely be "the wasteful expenditure" of hundreds of thousands of dollars for an individual "who would be better served by community-based treatment." (Prop. 36, § 3, subd. (b), reprinted at 51 West's Ann. Pen. Code, supra, foll. § 1210, p. 221.) Nor is this an isolated situation. The facts of People v. Fryman (Cal.App.), are virtually identical.
Reporter's Note; Review granted on July 31, 2002, S107283. On September 10, 2003, the cause was transferred to Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, with directions to vacate and reconsider in light of this opinion.
As the foregoing demonstrates, there are two reasonable interpretations of Proposition 36 with respect to whether defendant comes within its ameliorative provisions. Under the rule of lenity, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to which should prevail. ( Ex parte Rosenheim (1890) 83 Cal. 388, 391 [23 P. 372].) This result is all the more compelling since the majority's construction frustrates rather than promotes the purpose and intent of the initiative. (Cf. In re Pedro T., supra, 8, Cal.4th at p. 1046 [retroactive application would conflict with express legislative intent].)
Summary of this case from People v. Nevarez
Summary of this case from People v. Travis
Summary of this case from People v. Hale
rejecting defendant's assertion that prospective legislation fails rational basis review and noting state's legitimate interests in ensuring "penal laws will maintain their desired deterrent effect by carrying out the original prescribed punishment as written"
Summary of this case from Wells-Yates v. People
rejecting claim equal protection violation can arise "from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense"
Summary of this case from People v. Patton
rejecting the argument that "an equal protection violation aris[es] from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense"
Summary of this case from People v. Rodriguez
rejecting claim that "an equal protection violation aris[es] from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense"
Summary of this case from People v. Robertson
rejecting equal protection challenge to prospective-only application of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which guaranteed probation for individuals convicted of nonviolent possession offenses, subject to certain disqualifying circumstances
Summary of this case from People v. Mendoza
rejecting equal protection claim with respect to Proposition 36
Summary of this case from People v. Dixon
rejecting equal protection challenge to prospective-only application of proposition that lessened punishment for offense
Summary of this case from People v. Carrillo
Summary of this case from People v. Lee
Summary of this case from People v. Iverson
In Floyd, the California Supreme Court found that applying a regulation only to convictions that occurred after the date the regulation went into effect was constitutional because the Court found a "reasonable basis" for the distinctions the regulation generated.
Summary of this case from Doe v. City of San Diego, an Inc.
In Floyd, the California Supreme Court concluded the savings clause in Proposition 36[, The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,] ("[e]xcept as otherwise provided, the provisions of this act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively[,]"), precluded application to Floyd who had already been sentenced.
Summary of this case from State v. Reis
In People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179, 1 Cal. Rptr.3d 885, 72 P.3d 820 (2003), the California Supreme Court refused to apply ameliorative amendments requiring probation and treatment for certain drug offenders where the amendments took effect before the defendant's conviction was final, relying on the language of a savings clause included as part of the amending statute.
In Floyd, the defendant was sentenced shortly after Proposition 36 was passed into law, so his conviction was not yet final at the time of passage.
Summary of this case from People v. Lizarraga
In Floyd, the defendant's alternative argument was that to not apply the proposition to him when his judgment was not final at the time of passage would violate his equal protection rights.
In Floyd, supra, 31 Cal.4th 179, the Supreme Court determined that prospective application of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which amended state law to require that certain adult drug offenders receive probation instead of incarceration, to defendants convicted after its effective date did not violate equal protection principles.
Summary of this case from People v. Sandoval
In People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179, our Supreme Court applied the rational basis test in concluding that equal protection did not require Proposition 36 to be applied retroactively to convictions not yet final.
Summary of this case from People v. Crawford
In Floyd, the Supreme Court determined that prospective application of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, which amended state law to require that certain adult drug offenders receive probation, to defendants sentenced after its effective date did not violate equal protection principles.
Summary of this case from People v. Harris
In People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179 (Floyd), the California Supreme Court noted there is no authority "that recognizes an equal protection violation arising from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense."
Summary of this case from People v. Pastenes
Summary of this case from People v. Phillips
In People v. Floyd (2003) 31 Cal.4th 179, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 885, 72 P.3d 820 (Floyd), the California Supreme Court noted there is no authority "that recognizes an equal protection violation arising from the timing of the effective date of a statute lessening the punishment for a particular offense."
treating those convicted of drug offenses differently based on the date of their conviction does not entail an equal protection violation
Summary of this case from People v. Ashanti


text:
Q: Time Handler inside a time handler  TimerHandler timer =  new TimerHandler(.7f, true,  new ITimerCallback() {
                    private int grab_shell=0;
                    private int loop_count=0;

                    public void onTimePassed(TimerHandler pTimerHandler) {

                        if ((shell[0].getCurrentTileIndex()>0)&&(loop_count==0))
                        {
                            grab_shell=shell[0].getCurrentTileIndex();
                            shell[0].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                        }
                        if(grab_shell>0)
                        {
                            current_house++;
                            if(current_house==15)
                            {
                                current_house=0;
                            }
                            if((grab_shell==1)&&(current_house!=7)&&(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()!=0))
                            {

                                    grab_shell=2+shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex();
                                    shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(0);

                                }
                            }

                            else if ((grab_shell==1)&&(current_house!=7)&&(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()==0))
                            {
                                shell[7].setCurrentTileIndex(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()+1);
                                shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                            }
                            shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()+1);
                            grab_shell--;
                        }

                        if(grab_shell==0)
                        {
                        unregisterUpdateHandler(pTimerHandler);
                        }
                        loop_count++;
                        }

My problem is how can i create a delay within this code
    if((grab_shell==1)&&(current_house!=7)&&(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()!=0))
       {        grab_shell=2+shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex();
                                    shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                            }

This code was inside the a timerhandler. how can i do that? please show me.
This part of code has two action compared to the other conditions that is why i have to make this part a little bit delayed by 1.4seconds

A: Timer handlers can be nested. This means you can have a timer handler inside a timerhandler. The only thing that you need to make sure is that you unregister your handlers in order to avoid unwanted behavior. I also assume that you want the timer handler created with the if statement that you are pointing out.
TimerHandler timer =  new TimerHandler(.7f, true,  new ITimerCallback() {
                private int grab_shell=0;
                private int loop_count=0;

                public void onTimePassed(TimerHandler pTimerHandler) {

                    if ((shell[0].getCurrentTileIndex()>0)&&(loop_count==0))
                    {
                        grab_shell=shell[0].getCurrentTileIndex();
                        shell[0].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                    }
                    if(grab_shell>0)
                    {
                        current_house++;
                        if(current_house==15)
                        {
                            current_house=0;
                        }
                        if((grab_shell==1)&&(current_house!=7)&&(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()!=0))
                        {
                    //here
                    TimerHandler timer =  new TimerHandler(1.4f, true,  new ITimerCallback() {

                    @Override
                    public void onTimePassed(TimerHandler pTimerHandler) {
                    grab_shell=2+shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex();
                    shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                   //unregister timer handler

                    }

                 });

                            }
                        }

                        else if ((grab_shell==1)&&(current_house!=7)&&(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()==0))
                        {
                            shell[7].setCurrentTileIndex(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()+1);
                            shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(0);
                        }
                        shell[current_house].setCurrentTileIndex(shell[current_house].getCurrentTileIndex()+1);
                        grab_shell--;
                    }

                    if(grab_shell==0)
                    {
                    unregisterUpdateHandler(pTimerHandler);
                    }
                    loop_count++;
                    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Introduction. Commencing in 2004, the 407 ha Tiromoana Bush restoration project arose as part of the mitigation for the establishment of the Canterbury Regional Landfill at Kate Valley, New Zealand. The site lies one hour's drive north of Christchurch City in North Canterbury coastal hill country (Motunau Ecological District, 43° 06' S, 172° 51' E, 0 – 360 m a.s.l.) and is located on a former sheep and beef farm.
Soils are derived from tertiary limestones and mudstones and the site experiences an annual rainfall of 920mm, largely falling in winter. The current vegetation is a mix of Kānuka (Kunzea robusta) and mixed-species shrubland and low forest, restoration plantings, wetlands, Gorse (Ulex europaeus) and European Broom (Cytisus scoparius) shrubland and abandoned pasture. Historically the area would have been forest, which was likely cleared 500-700 years ago as a result of early Māori settlement fires. A total of 177 native vascular plant and 22 native bird species have been recorded, including four nationally threatened species and several regionally rare species.
Vigorous regeneration is occurring within the existing areas of shrubland and forest sufficient to ensure that natural successional processes are leading towards the development of mature lowland forest.
The existing Korimako (Bellbird Anthornis melanura) population has expanded and Kereru (Native Pigeon Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) are now residing within the area, and the species richness and abundance of native water birds have been enhanced.
The area of Black Beech (Fuscospora solandri) forest has increased with at least one additional Black Beech population established.
Restoration plantings and natural regeneration have enhanced connectivity between existing forest patches.
Restoration plantings have re-established locally rare vegetation types.
The area is being actively used for recreational, educational and scientific purposes.
Day-to-day management is guided by a five-year management plan and annual work plans. The management plan provides an overview of the approach that is being taken to restoration, while annual work plans provide detail on the specific management actions that will be undertaken to implement the management plan.
Forest restoration plantings connecting two areas of regenerating Kānuka forest. Photo David Norton.
An Open Space Covenant was gazetted on the title of the property in July 2006 through the QEII National Trust, providing in-perpetuity protection of the site irrespective of future ownership.
Browsing by cattle and sheep was excluded at the outset of the project through upgrading existing fences and construction of new fences. A 16 km deer fence has been built which together with intensive animal control work by ground-based hunters has eradicated Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and helped reduce damage caused by feral pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus).
Strategic restoration plantings have been undertaken annually to increase the area of native woody and wetland vegetation, as well as providing food and nesting resources for native birds. A key focus of these has been on enhancing linkages between existing areas of regenerating forest and re-establishing rare ecosystem types (e.g. wetland and coastal forest).
Annual weed control is undertaken focusing on species that are likely to alter successional development (e.g. wilding conifers, mainly Pinus radiata, and willows Salix cinerea and fragilis) or that have the potential to smother native regeneration (e.g. Old Man's Beard Clematis vitalba). Gorse and European Broom are not controlled as they act as a nurse for native forest regeneration and the cost and collateral damage associated with their control will outweigh biodiversity benefits.
Establishment of a public walking track was undertaken early in the project and in 2017/2018 this was enhanced and extended, with new interpretation included. Public access has been seen as a core component of the project from the outset so the public can enjoy the restoration project and access a section of the coastline that is otherwise relatively inaccessible.
Part of the walkway upgrade included working closely with the local Māori tribe, Ngāi Tūāhuriri, who have mana whenua (customary ownership) over the area. They were commissioned to produce a pou whenua (land marker) at the walkway's coastal lookout. The carvings on the pou reflect cultural values and relate to the importance of the area to Ngāi Tūāhuriri and especially values associated with mahinga kai (the resources that come from the area).
Regular monitoring has included birds, vegetation and landscape, with additional one-off assessments of invertebrates and animal pests. Tiromoana Bush has been used as the basis for several undergraduate and postgraduate student research projects from the two local universities.
Vigorous regeneration of Mahoe under the Kānuka canopy following exclusion of grazing animals. Photo David Norton.
Control of browsing mammals, both domestic and feral, has been essential to the success of this project. While domestic livestock were excluded at the outset of the project, feral Red Deer and pigs have the potential to seriously compromise restoration outcomes and these species have required additional management inputs (fencing and culling).
Since removal of grazing, the dominant exotic pasture grasses, especially Cocksfoot (Dactylis gomerata), now form tall dense swards. These swards severely restrict the ability of native woody plants to establish and herbicide control is used both pre- and post-planting to overcome this. During dry summers (which are common) the grass sward is also a significant fuel source and the walkway is closed during periods of high fire risk to avoid accidental fires which would decimate the restoration project.
Regular monitoring is important for assessing the biodiversity response to management. Annual photo-monitoring now spanning 15-years is highlighting significant changes in land cover across the site, while more detailed monitoring of plants and birds is strongly informing management actions. For example, seven-years of bird monitoring has indicated an ongoing decline in some native birds that is most likely due to predation (by cats, mustelids, rodents, hedgehogs). As a result, a predator control programme is commencing in 2019.
Simply removing grazing pressure from areas of existing regenerating native woody vegetation cannot be expected to result in the return of the pre-human forest because of the absence of seed sources. Permanent plots suggest that Kānuka is likely to be replaced by Mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus), with few other tree species present. Gap creation and enrichment planting is therefore being used to speed up the development of a more diverse podocarp-angiosperm forest canopy.
Kate Pond on the Tiromoana Bush walkway. The pond and surrounding wetland provides habitat for several native water birds. Photo Jo Stilwell.
The pou whenua on the coastal lookout platform looking north up the coastline. Photo David Norton.
The main valley floor is dominated by regenerating Kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides) forest and wetland, and the lower valley is dominated by regenerating coastal vegetation.
At least one locally extinct native bird species has been reintroduced.
Tiromoana Bush is managed as part of a wider Motunau conservation project.
The restoration project is used regularly as a key educational resource by local schools.
The walkway is regarded as an outstanding recreational experience and marketed by others as such.
Tiromoana Bush is highly valued by Ngāi Tūāhuriri.
Kereru, one of the native birds that restoration aims to help increase in abundance. Photo David Norton.
Stakeholders and funding. The project is funded by Transwaste Canterbury Ltd., a public-private partnership company who own the landfill and have been active in their public support for the restoration project and in promoting a broader conservation initiative in the wider area. Shareholders of the partnership company are Waste Management NZ Ltd, Christchurch City Council and Waimakariri, Hurunui, Selwyn and Ashburton District Councils.
Introduction. Te Motu Tapu a Taikehu (Motutapu Island, 1509 ha) is located in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, situated on the east coast of the north of New Zealand's North Island. It lies immediately adjacent to Rangitoto Island which is a volcano that last erupted approximately 500-550 years ago. This, and previous eruptions would have regularly devastated the forest and wetland ecosystems on Motutapu.
After a history of Maori settlement, European clearing and farming and use for military purposes during WWII, the Island was transferred to what is now the Department of Conservation (DOC) in 1970. The island is now designated a recreation reserve, open to the public.
Pollen records suggest that after the Rangitoto eruptions ceased around AD 1500, Motutapu recovered to be covered by a patchwork of lowland podocarp/broadleaf forest typical of that found in the Auckland region, and presumably was habitat to birds, reptiles, bats, fish and invertebrates similar to those on other Northland islands and the mainland.
Habitat loss through anthropogenic disturbances including fire, clearing for farming, and the introduction of mammalian predators saw many species of native bird, reptile and plants extirpated. Prior to restoration started in 1994, Motutapu was almost entirely covered by pastoral grassland dominated by exotic species, except for a few, very small forest remnants, and a depauperate native faunal communities.
Planning of the ecological restoration program is undertaken by the Natural Heritage Committee of the Trust, a group of some 15 volunteers who meet monthly to plan, and discuss implementation. Members are highly qualified, skilled and enthusiastic practitioners. Together the committee brings sound ecological theory and practice to the restoration of flora and fauna. Published plans they work from include the 1994 Motutapu Restoration Working Plan and subsequent 2010 audit.
The objective is to return the island forest and wetland ecosystems to a post-eruption state, with a goal of reaching 500 ha of restored forest and wetland over coming decades. Although this area is far less than the full area of the island, it allows the conservation of cultural and archaeological sites, such as pā, WWII infrastructure, and farming landscapes. The post-eruption state can be described as lowland mixed broadleaf/podocarp forest, with a suite of seabirds, waders, forest birds, reptiles, bats and invertebrates interacting with each other so that natural evolutionary processes can once more resume for these taxa on the island.
Implementation of the ecological restoration of Motutapu has been underway for 23 years, since the formation of the Motutapu Restoration Trust (MRT) in 1994. To date, in excess of 100 ha of pasture has been converted to pioneer forest representing an estimated 450,000+ trees planted. Volunteer hours total 21,462 between 2005 and 2015, and is currently in excess of 3,200 hours annually.
15,136 plants went into Hospital B paddock; one of the most difficult planting sites on the island.
Revegetation. The original strategy (1994 – 2009) was to initiate successional processes by planting pioneer phase species, which would later give way to mature phase species dispersed naturally by birds. However, it was realized that mature phase species would be slow to arrive, as the island is isolated from native forests on nearby islands and seed dispersal from them is unlikely. If seed is dispersed from its own remnant forests, any new forest will continue to reflect the depauperate nature of these remnants.
In 2010, the planting strategy was updated to include enrichment planting of mature phase forest species into the forests planted up to 15 years earlier. Seeds for this were eco-sourced from the wider Auckland region, within boundaries agreed with DOC, and brought to the island nursery for propagation. This was an opportunity to return species to the island that are currently absent, including Swamp Maire (Syzygium maire), Tree Fuchsia (Fuchsia excorticata), Pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea), White Maire (Nestegis lanceolata), Black Maire (N. cunninghamii), Turepo (Streblus banksii) and a number of podocarps including Matai (Prumnopitys taxifolia), Miro (P. ferruginea) and Rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum).
The project has a large nursery, operated by one full time volunteer and supported by other volunteers during the week and weekends. The nursery provides all the plants for the planting programme. Seed is collected by a small team of collectors who travel Auckland's and the Island's forest remnants for seeds all year round. Growing media is supplied pro bono by Daltons and Living Earth and delivered by DOC boat. The risk of importing the introduced pests Rainbow Skink (Lampropholis delicata) as eggs and Argentine Ant (Linepithema humile) precludes bringing potted plants onto the island.
Weeds such as Woolly Nightshade (Solanum mauritianum), Moth Vine (Araujia sericifera), Evergreen Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus), Apple of Sodom (Solanum linnaeanum), pampas (Cortaderia spp.), and Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) have been present on the island for many years, and in pasture had been kept in check by grazing. However, when pasture is retired, populations of these weeds explode and threaten the plantings on not only Motutapu Island, but also by dispersal to neighbouring Hauraki Gulf Islands. In particular, Rangitoto Island is threatened by invasion of weeds from Motutapu.
Weeding of the planted forests takes place in a strategic and planned way year round. Volunteers routinely grid search the plantations and control the infestations (using the hip chain method). Sources of reinfestation on other parts of the island are addressed by contractors who have the training to get at inaccessible weeds (e.g., cliff faces). New drone technology is in the process of being recruited to identify infestations of weeds from the air, where they cannot be seen from the ground, or where access is particularly hazardous (e.g., cliff faces).
Pest species management. The suite of mammalian predators and herbivores on the Island prior to 2009 were detrimental to both flora and fauna, and their continued presence would have meant that neither locally extinct bird and plant species could be reintroduced, nor palatable plant species thrive. These pests included: rats (Rattus rattus, R. norvegicus, R. exulans); House Mouse (Mus musculus); Stoat (Mustela erminea); feral Cat (Felis catus); Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus occidentalis) and the European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).
The successful eradication of pests from Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands was undertaken by DOC in 2009 using helicopters to disperse broadifacoum. DOC employs a biosecurity ranger on the island who responds to any new rat, stoat or other incursions.
Faunal translocations. A major milestone was the declaration in 2011 of pest-free status for the Island, and the subsequent re-introductions of birds and aquatic taxa that this allowed.
Survey and Monitoring. Annual surveys of terrestrial birds and shorebirds by the Ornithological Society of New Zealand have been undertaken since 2007. As well, a survey of seabirds nesting on the island is underway, and monitoring of translocated birds by MRT volunteers in association with DOC is ongoing. Stream fauna and reptiles are surveyed and reported on annually by DOC.
The Island's native and exotic plants are also being surveyed to ascertain progress of the recovery over time, and plant survival rates have been monitored informally via regular tours of the plantings to assess what is working and what is not.
It is clear that the 100ha of restored vegetation has resulted in natural processes of vegetation recovery occurring, with natural regeneration evident for many species. Once the fruiting forest is fully established on Motutapu Island we envisage that it will be fully self-sustaining via seed dispersal by frugivorous birds.
Populations of fauna, with four exceptions, appear to be self-sustainable on Island. Many of the reintroduced bird species are clearly reproducing on the island and populations are growing without human intervention as evidenced by our bird surveys. The exceptions are Shore plover and Pāteke which naturally disperse away from the Island, necessitating several translocations to ensure the populations build to create a resident population, and are viable. Kiwi and Takahē populations are still being built up to founder population size.
Self-introduced or now detectable: Kākāriki (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae), Bellbird (Anthornis melanura), Spotless Crake (Porzana tabuensis), Little Blue Penguin (Eudyptula minor), Banded Rail (Gallirallus phillipensis), Grey-faced Storm Petrel (Pterodroma macroptera gouldi).
Secure engagement with local stakeholders.
Department of Conservation – MRT's partner since the inception of the Trust in 1994, which has been responsible for some of our biggest milestones, such as the eradication of mammalian predators 2009-2011.
Motutapu Farms Ltd – leases the pasture from DOC to farm beef and sheep, becoming Auckland's largest Another long-standing partner, helping the ecology of the island and wider Hauraki Gulf by farming organically.
Auckland Zoo – monitoring the populations of Redfin Bully ( Gobiomorphus huttoni) and Koura (Paranephrops planifrons).
Motuora Restoration Society (http://motuora.org.nz) is recognised by the New Zealand Department of Conservation as the lead community agency for the restoration of Motuora, an 80 ha island in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Since 2003 the Society has taken responsibility for the Island's day-to-day management as well as developing and implementing the Island's long term restoration strategy. Our aspiration is summed up in our statement "It is our dream that future generations will enjoy a forest alive with native birds, reptiles and insects".
Figure 1 – Aerial view of the Island before planting began. Area to bottom left has been sprayed in preparation for planting (Photo from cover of 2007 Motuora Native Species Restoration Plan).
Background. Motuora is located on the east coast of New Zealand's North Island near Auckland City. Motuora would once have been tree-covered and have hosted a wide range of native plants, invertebrates, reptiles and birds, particularly burrow-nesting seabirds. It was visited by early Polynesian settlers, later Māori, who would have initially camped, but later lived more permanently on the Island raising crops and harvesting fish, shellfish and presumably seabird eggs, chicks and adults. European settlers later occupied the Island, burning off most of the bush to encourage growth of grasses for their grazing livestock.
Towards the end of the farming period in the 1980s most of the Island's native flora and fauna were gone. Interestingly however, there were never breeding populations of introduced mammalian pests on the Island so the remnant ecosystem had not been impacted by mice, rats, mustelids, hedgehogs, possums, goats, pigs or deer.
From about 1987 onwards both Government and members of the public began to take an interest in the Island and to promote the idea of adopting it as a predator-free bird habitat. Discussions continued over the next few years and by 1992 a sub-committee of the mid-North Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society had been formed and, in partnership with the Department of Conservation, drew up the first 'strategy plan' for the Island. Work parties began seed collecting, trial tree planting, weeding and fencing upgrades. By 1995 it had become apparent that the project could best proceed by way of an independent group dedicated to the task and the Motuora Restoration Society was formed.
The work on Motuora was designed to be a true restoration project combining firm ideas about the model ecosystem desired and a 'bottom-up' approach (vegetation-invertebrates-reptiles-birds) timing planting and introductions in a logical sequence. The historical presence of species on Motuora was inferred from comparisons with other less modified islands off the north east of the North Island, and particularly those from within the Rodney and Inner Gulf Ecological Districts, and using paleological information collected from the adjacent mainland. Motuora Restoration Society has resisted the temptation to add iconic attractive species not originally present on the Island which might have raised the profile of the project.
Works carried out. The Society and its volunteers have contributed many thousands of hours to the restoration of the Island since 1995, raising and planting more than 300,000 native seedlings. This was particularly challenging with the logistics of working on an island without a regular ferry service or wharf. The project also included seabird and other species translocations, monitoring, weeding and track maintenance as well as fundraising.
The framework adopted began with reforestation so that appropriate habitat could be reinstated. A nursery was set up and seeds were collected from the Island, from nearby islands and, when necessary, from the mainland. With the exception of some areas of higher ground providing panoramic views from the Island, the land area was prepared (by weed-killing rampant kikuyu grass) and planted with hardy, wind and salt tolerant tree species. Once the trees were established, the canopy closed and sufficient shelter available, less hardy species and those requiring lower light levels were planted among the pioneers. Today the planting of 400,000 trees of pioneer species is all but complete; and the raising and planting of 'canopy' and less hardy species continues.
In terms of fauna, invertebrate populations were surveyed and have been monitored as the forest has matured. One species, Wētāpunga (Deinacrida heteracantha) has been introduced. Four reptiles have been introduced: Shore Skink (Oligosoma smithi), Duvaucel's Gecko (Hoplodactylus duvaucelii), Raukawa Gecko (Woodworthia maculata) and Pacific Gecko (Dactylocnemis pacificus). One small land bird – Whitehead (Mohoua albicilla) has been translocated with 40 individuals moved to the Island. Four seabird species have been attracted or translocated to the Island including the Common Diving Petrel (Pelecanoides urinatrix), and Pycroft's Petrel (Pterodroma pycrofti).
Results. The project has restored Motuora from a pastoral farm (dominated by introduced grasses, weeds and only a small remnant fringe of naturally regenerating native forest) to a functioning native ecosystem, predominantly covered in early succession native forest with an intact canopy.
Initially the population of invertebrates was dominated by grassland species but the range and population size of forest dwellers has now much improved and the invertebrate fauna is now rich and plentiful (although rarer and endangered species are still to be added). An initial suite of populations of flightless invertebrates remain depauperate. Whitehead, an insectivorous bird species, has flourished with a current population of several hundred. At this early stage in the introduction of native fauna it is possible to report successful breeding and, for the most part, sufficient survival of initial colonisers of the species introduced to suggest that new populations will be established. Sound attraction systems have led to initial breeding of Fluttering Shearwater (Puffinus gavia) and Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator).
Partnerships. Management of the Island is shared with the Department of Conservation (DOC) who administer the site on behalf of the Crown. DOC has legal commitments to engage with and act on behalf of the general public and particularly with iwi (Māori) who have generally expressed strong support for the restoration project and are expected to have co-management rights over the Island in the future.
Over the years the combined efforts of DOC staff, University researchers, the committee, thousands of volunteers and a host of donors and sponsors have worked hard to bring the Island to its present state.
Future directions. A sustained effort will continue to be required each year on biosecurity and weeding programmes. It will be many more decades before the forest matures and seabird and reptile populations reach capacity levels and a substantial workload is anticipated in managing and monitoring the emerging ecosystem for many years to come.
Acknowledgements: The success of the project is reinforced by the fact that the Society has maintained a close collaboration with a range of scientists and have inspired the active support and engagement of so many volunteers. We thank all our inspiring volunteers and the following participating academics and researchers who have contributed to the project over the past ten years: Plants: Shelley Heiss Dunlop, Helen Lindsay (contractor). Reptiles: Marleen Baling (Massey University), Dylan van Winkel (consultant), Su Sinclair (Auckland Council), Manuela Barry (Massey University). Invertebrates: Chris Green (DOC), Robin Gardner-Gee (Auckland University), Jacqueline Beggs (Auckland University), Stephen Wallace (Auckland University). Birds: Robin Gardner-Gee (Auckland University), Jacqueline Beggs (Auckland University), Kevin Parker (Massey University), Richard Griffiths (DOC), Graeme Taylor (DOC), Helen Gummer (DOC contractor). The restoration project has been supported financially though grant aid received from a wide range of funders.


text:
Q: Is there any downside to save all my source code files in UTF-8? If that's relevant (it very well could be), they are PHP source code files.

A: There are a few pitfalls to take care of:

*

*PHP is not aware of the BOM character certain editors or IDEs like to put at the very beginning of UTF-8 files. This character indicates the file is UTF-8, but it is not necessary, and it is invisible. This can cause "headers already sent out" warnings from functions that deal with HTTP headers because PHP will output the BOM to the browser if it sees one, and that will prevent you from sending any header. Make sure your text editor has a UTF-8 (No BOM) encoding; if you're not sure, simply do the test. If <?php header('Content-Type: text/html') ?> at the beginning of an otherwise empty file doesn't trigger a warning, you're fine.

*Default string functions are not multibyte encodings-aware. This means that strlen really returns the number of bytes in the string, not the actual number of characters. This isn't too much of a problem until you start splicing strings of non-ASCII characters with functions like substr: when you do, indices you pass to it refer to byte indices rather than character indices, and this can cause your script to break non-ASCII characters in two. For instance, echo substr("é", 0, 1) will return an invalid UTF-8 character because in UTF-8, é actually takes two bytes and substr will return only the first one. (The solution is to use the mb_ string functions, which are aware of multibyte encodings.)

*You must ensure that your data sources (like external text files or databases) return UTF-8 strings too, because PHP makes no automagic conversion. To that end, you may use implementation-specific means (for instance, MySQL has a special query that lets you specify in which encoding you expect the result: SET CHARACTER SET UTF8 or something along these lines), or if you couldn't find a better way, mb_convert_encoding or iconv will convert one string into another encoding.

A: It's actually usually recommended that you keep all sources in UTF8. It won't matter size of regular code with latin characters at all, but will prevent glitches with any special characters.

A: If you are using any special chars in e.g string values, the size is a little bit bigger, but that shouldn't matter.
Nevertheless my suggestion is, to always leave the default format. I spent so many hours because there was an error with the format saving and all characters changed.
From a technical point of few, there isn't a difference!

A: Very relevant, the PHP parser may start to output spurious characters, like a funky unside-down questionmark. Just stick to the norm, much preferred.


text:
Denso to show how cars will connect and talk to other cars to save lives and time at 2012 NAIAS
Dhiram Shah
on 11 January, 2012 at 09:34
Denso will connect consumers to new technologies through interactive displays at the 2012 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). Among its displays, Denso will show how cars will connect and talk to other cars and roadside structures, like traffic signals, to save lives, time and the environment. The company also will feature an interactive display that allows consumers to pick their commute or driving pattern to find what vehicle type or technology best suits their driving needs. Denso will also feature its fuel efficiency technologies that will help automakers meet the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) averages, announced by the Obama administration, of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
The 2012 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) will be held at the Cobo Center, Detroit, United States and will be open to the public from Saturday, Jan. 14, – Sunday, Jan. 22, 2012. Denso will also hold a press conference in its main floor NAIAS booth on Monday, Jan. 9, at 5:30 p.m., to announce its technological and business developments in North America.
READ Level 10 M Gaming Mouse premiers at CeBIT 2012
Mitsubishi Electric to install two 1,011-inch Diamond Vision displays at Saitama Stadium 2002
World's Slimmest Smartphone Huawei Ascend P1 S features dual-core 1.5GHz processor
Samsung's Newest 108MP Mobile Image Sensor provides Optimum Brightness and Enhanced Auto-Focusing
Asus Announces Mini PC PB61V with Support for Intel vPro Technology
Fujitsu Leverages Deep Learning to Achieve World's Most Accurate Recognition of Complex Actions and Behaviors Based on Skeleton Data
Samsung 5G-integrated mobile processor Exynos 2100 can perform up to 26-trillion-operations-per-second with more power efficiency
Qualcomm and NIO Bring Immersive Driving Experiences with Intelligent Cockpit and 5G Technologies to NIO ET7
Follow @Fareastgizmos
Copyright © 2014 Fareastgizmos | All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Call on new and existing customers in Suffolk / Norfolk Counties / #128 marketplace. Loans will range in size from $500K up to $8MM+. Work closely with prospective and existing customers seeking commercial loans or lines of credit. The individual will analyze the applicant's financial status and credit to determine feasibility of granting the loan. Will approve loans within established limits or will refer loans to the Loan Committee for approval. Cross-sell additional bank products and services.
7-10+ yrs. exp. in commercial lending experience (both C&I and Commercial Real Estate). 4 yr. degree, MBA a plus. Formal Credit Trained preferred, with strong credit skills and a record of success in attaining and retaining commercial business. Local contacts preferred.


text:
package com.fernandocejas.android10.sample.data;

import java.lang.reflect.Field;
import org.junit.runner.RunWith;

/**
 * Base class for Robolectric data layer tests running with a custom Test Runner.
 * Inherit from this class to create a test.
 */
@RunWith(ApplicationTestRunner.class)
public class ApplicationTestCase {

  /**
   * Resets a Singleton class.
   * This works using reflection and looking for a private field in the singleton called
   * "INSTANCE".
   * It is actually a workaround (hack?) to avoid global state when testing in isolation.
   *
   * @param clazz The class to reset.
   */
  protected void resetSingleton(Class clazz) {
    Field instance;
    try {
      instance = clazz.getDeclaredField("INSTANCE");
      instance.setAccessible(true);
      instance.set(null, null);
    } catch (NoSuchFieldException e) {
      e.printStackTrace();
    } catch (IllegalAccessException e) {
      e.printStackTrace();
    } catch (Exception e) {
      e.printStackTrace();
    }
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
-- See Also the narrower term Arabs and Islam
Here are entered works on the role of Islam in the history of the Arabs, as well as works on the role of the Arabs in the history of Islam, the specifically Arab features of Islam, and the doctrine of the Arabs as the chosen people of Islam, whether these topics are treated individually or collectively.
-- See Also the narrower term God (Islam)
-- See Also the narrower term Islamic fundamentalism
-- See Also the narrower term Islamic modernism
-- See Also the narrower term Jerusalem In Islam
-- See Also Muslims
Here are entered works on the community of believers in Islam. Works on the religion of which Muhammad is the prophet are entered under Islam. Works on the group of countries in which the majority of the people are Muslims or in which Islam is the established religion are entered under Islamic countries. Works on the cultural system or civilization erected on the foundation of the religion Islam are entered under specific headings according to period covered, e.g. Civilization, Islamic (for the medieval period); Islamic countries--Civilization (for the modern period and general works).
-- See Also the narrower term Slavery and Islam
-- See Also the narrower term Ummah (Islam)
Here are entered works on the concept of the Islamic community of believers as a whole, which transcends ethnic or political boundaries, and sometimes includes the idea of an Islamic state ruled by Islamic law.
-- See Also the narrower term Women in Islam


One of the clearest signs that the world's two largest crude exporters were putting their rivalry behind them came in 2017, when King Salman became the first reigning Saudi monarch .
Most Gulf investments in Russia are funneled through the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund (SWF), known as the Public Investment Fund, has already pumped $2.5 billion into the Russian fund for joint projects. It plans to invest another later.
The Saudi SWF, run by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, is considering financing additional Russian projects in a range of sectors, including petrochemicals, power, logistics, transport infrastructure, and retail. In return, the Russian fund has pledged to line up a of Russian buyers for Saudi Aramco shares if the oil giant goes public as part of a potential $100 billion offering.
Another intriguing development was Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih's announcement that an agreement for the Saudis to of the Russian oil and gas equipment manufacturer Novomet will be finalized this month. In conjunction with the deal, Novomet will supply the first Russian-made oil and gas equipment to Saudi Aramco and other companies in the kingdom.
Meanwhile, a partnership between Saudi Aramco, Japan's Mitsui, and the Russian Direct Investment Fund is considering acquiring a 30 to 40 percent stake in Novatek's $25-billion . A deal would go a long way toward helping Russia achieve its ambitious goal of becoming a major competitor of Qatar and Australia, the world's two largest liquefied natural gas exporters.


text:
Seo (Hangŭl: 서구; Hanja: 西區) è un distretto di Gwangju. Ha una superficie di 46,74 km² e una popolazione di 106.561 abitanti al 2007.

Altri progetti

Collegamenti esterni

Seo

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


At Stokks we are committed to providing a website that is accessible to the widest possible audience, regardless of technology or ability.
Our site includes forms to request information, products and services. Contact information from these forms is used to send orders and information about our company to our customers. The customer's contact information is also used to get in touch with the customer when necessary. Customers may opt-out of receiving future mailings.
We respect your privacy, and we will never share any personal information with a third party without your expressed prior consent.


text:
Florida high school students helped Virginia Tech heal after 2007 mass shooting
Photos/Virginia Tech University Archives
BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - Students at the Florida high school where a gunman is accused of fatally shooting 17 people this week helped Virginia Tech heal after its own deadly campus shooting more than a decade ago, officials at the university said Friday.
After a gunman fatally shot 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, tens of thousands of items poured in as condolences. Among them was a large book with a wooden cover from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, full of poems, notes and drawings, university archivist Tamara Kennelly said.
"We loved it when it came and now, you know, it's just devastating," Kennelly said.
Two students at the Florida high school came up with the idea for the book and presented it to other students at a state leadership convention, Kennelly said.
"Within days they had just thousands of pages of poems and letters and wishes and drawings," she said. Other students at the high school turned those into collages that fill the book's more than 100 pages.
Tech President Timothy Sands tweeted a link Friday to a page about the book in the university's condolence archives.
"We will never forget that you helped us to heal," Sands wrote in the tweet.
The shooting at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg was, at the time, the deadliest mass shooting in recent U.S. history. It forced schools across the country to rethink campus security and reignited the debate over gun control that rages to this day.
On Wednesday, authorities say a 19-year-old who had been expelled from the Florida school opened fire there, killing 17 people and wounding more than a dozen others.


It all sounds too good to be true, but if the rumours are right, the Google tablet will price match the Amazon Kindle Fire, selling for $199, which is just under £130.
We have already heard similar rumblings about the Google tablet, but the Android and Me site claims to have more background detail on the device. It claims Google has partnered with Asus to produce the tablet, which is certainly no stranger to the tablet market. But there isn't expected to be much of Asus here, as it's described as a pure 'Google Experience Device', free of any company add-ons. It's also said to be packing a quad-core Tegra 3 processor, and will ship with Android Ice Cream Sandwich.
All of that comes from 'industry sources' cornered at the recent Mobile World Congress, both of whom have provided 'reliable information in the past'. As for the price, with Amazon shipping around five million units in the last quarter of last year, it seems that Google has realised that the tablet market is very price sensitive.
With that in mind, it needs to match Amazon if it wants a good chunk of the market, throwing in all those Google mobile services as added temptation. Storage could be limited to keep the price down, with the rumoured Google Drive being promoted to access media files in the 'cloud'.
As for a release date, Android 4.0 rather than 5.0 indicates a launch might be sooner than you imagine, although that same source indicates June more likely, with an event on 27 June already being talked about as the grand unveil. There might even be two launches, with a 10-inch tablet for an additional $100. In a few months time, we should know for sure. As for the name, nothing definite, but Google Play has been mentioned.


How to update your tax information?
To update your tax information, you must have a notification of American express, in which you will get your merchant number and secure code. Enter both numbers on Update page to verify your information, and then follow the instructions.
How to pay your taxes online and offline?
American Express is best known for its credit card, charge card and traveler's cheque businesses. With its credit card it provides many services like pay bills, taxes, online and offline shopping, etc. Now people can pay their federal, state and local taxes very easily at this site. To pay your taxes online, first you need to prepare and file your taxes typically. Then select one of the two IRS-approved companies: Official Payments Corp and pay1040.com Corporation which accepts payment for both business and personal federal taxes. Both companies take some fee on tax payments. For tax payments you need to fill up taxes forms which can be found under the Forms and Publications section of the Prepare your Taxes section of this website.
Official Payment Corporation is a chief provider of electronic payment for the IRS, States, municipalities, colleges and universities countrywide. If you want to pay your taxes with official payment corporation then open its official site, where you will get all taxes payment option on the home page. Select your tax payment option, and go at payment page, on this page you will get two options- Pay personal tax and Pay business tax with form details, click on form for payment you intend to make, then enter payment amount and continue with it and at last fill up tax payer information with your personal, cards and payment amount details and click on 'continue' to get confirm detail page, where you can see that your entered information is right or wrong. If any information is wrong then go back to previous page, and confirm your detail. After then you will get digital receipt with confirmation number and personal detail. You will also see this receipt at your email address.
You can also make your Tax payment with pay1040.com which is a service of Link2Gov, under agreement with IRS. At this site you can make your tax payment with Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover credit cards, as well as Bill Me Later card. For tax payment at this site, first open it and click on 'make a payment' option, get payment page, where select type of tax payment and enter tax amount and filling location and click on 'continue'. On another page, select terms and conditions of online payment and continue the process. Fill personal and credit cards information and continue it and get confirm page, verify your information and complete the payment process to get confirmation mail at your email address.
For paying local taxes you must contact to Official Payments or pay1040.com Corporation online or by phone to find out if card payments are accepted in your area. If your resident area is not applicable for text payment, then contact your local municipality. By contacting them you may be able to directly pay with your card.