text:
tlewisisdope
I write about culture from a pro-Black perspective
Best Albums of 2010 (30-25)
Posted on December 27, 2010 by tlewisisdope
30. Rah Digga – Classic
Sadly, Rah Digga's triumphant return to rhyming got very little attention this year. It's a shame because Rah Digga is, as she says on the album, "straight spittin." This is a lean, focused album produced entirely by Nottz directed almost exclusively at Rah Digga's fanbase. She's not tryna blow up big or prove she can run with the young artists. This is the work of a veteran totally comfortable in her greatness just doing what she loves for love of it and for whoever might love it too. As greats age, a lot of attention is being paid to "middle-aged hip hop." Well, we should be talking about Classic as an album that could be a template for how to age gracefully in the game. Pure emceeing over great beats that make you nod your head. Rah Digga makes you remember that this is actually all you need.
29. Jazmine Sullivan – Love Me Back
Jazmine Sullivan has a big bluesy voice that she frequently deploys in bombastic ways that convey tremendous anger, sadness or exasperation. On Love Me Back, she wisely chooses to show that she's capable of much much more. So she beguiles on "Don't Make Me Wait," duets with Ne-Yo on "You Get On My Damn Nerves), and raps on "Redemption." And, of course, doing so only makes you appreciate what she achieves when she plays fed up on the Salaam Remi-produced "10 Seconds" – the best song on the album – and breaks your heart on "Good Enough." Jazmine Sullivan confirms with Love Me Back that she is one of the few female singers of her generation that knows exactly what she's doing…
28. Chrisette Michele – Let Freedom Reign
…which is in stark contrast to a singer like Chrisette Michele. She's a vocal stylist who was signed at the exact time that such a thing is totally unmarketable. So her label tampered with her image and albums trying to figure out how to sell her to people who likely will never appreciate her greatness and frustrating those people who felt that she wasn't being allowed to fulfill her potential. Which brings me to the provocatively titled Let Freedom Reign, which features songs all written or co-written by Michele for the first time since her debut. Clearly, then this album is about, on some level, becoming exactly the artist that Michele wants to be – a torch song loving chanteuse who sometimes makes intriguing forays into hip-hop soul. "Goodbye Game" and "I Don't Know Why, But I Do" are brilliant, destined-to-be standards and the charms of "So In Love," "I'm Your Life," and "I'm A Star" hit you after a few listens. It's perhaps a song or two too long, but give in to Michele. She really is a star and this album gets her a little closer to that definitive album statement that we all know she has in her.
27. Novel, Legato Blues Summer
Novel has been toiling away as a singer/emcee for over a decade. And even though that is not so rare a thing anymore, Novel remains an unsigned gem. And rather than uses his dual status as a gimmick, Novel genuinely seems to understand when an idea is best conveyed in song and when it might be better served by a few tight verses. He is truly the rare artist who excels at both. Legato Blues Summer is his latest free mixtape – he released a collabo mixtape with Joell Ortiz this year too – and it's chock full of great rhymes and terrific melodies about life, love, women, and vulnerability.
26. Brandon Hines – In Search Of…
Brandon Hines has been around for a few years, but In Search Of… is the first album where you think that he could break into the mainstream. And it isn't because he's latched onto a new trend convincingly or because there is a monster single on the album. Nope, it is because though it is fairly standard R&B, the album feels truly complete and fully realized – which is not something that we are getting from young male R&B new jacks right now. In Search Of… is about something basic – longing, desire, looking for love – but Hines' wonderfully expressive voice, particularly on "Screaming Out" and "Bye Bye Bye", makes the album something special.
25. Calvin Richardson – America's Most Wanted
At this point in his career, Calvin Richardson has boiled his sound down to the essence. His is a no-frills southern-fried soul that is comforting in its simplicity and straight-forwardness. "You're So Amazing" is powerful, but it's really on "Come Over" and "Feels Like We're Sexin" where Richardson's greatness is in full bloom. He's been a fairly chaste lover in the past, so it is nice to see him get a lil nasty on this album. Ultimately, America's Most Wanted is Richardson's most consistent recording to date.
My full review over at Popmatters.
December 30, 2010 Best Albums of 2010 (12-7)
December 31, 2010 Best Songs of 2010 (6-1)
December 27, 2010 Best Albums and Songs of 2010 – Explanation
December 30, 2010 Best Albums of 2010 (18-13)
December 29, 2010 Best Songs of 2010 (18-13)
This entry was posted in Best of 2010 - Albums, Music and tagged America's Most Wanted, Best albums of 2010, black music, Brandon Hines, Calvin Richardson, Chrisette Michele, Classic, emcee, hip hop, In Search Of, Jazmine Sullivan, Joell Ortiz, Legato Blues Summer, Let Freedom Reign, Love Me Back, mixtape, Ne-Yo, Nottz, Novel, R&B, Rah Digga, soul music by tlewisisdope. Bookmark the permalink.


text:
Eurytoma pallidiceps är en stekelart som beskrevs av Maximilian Spinola 1851. Eurytoma pallidiceps ingår i släktet Eurytoma och familjen kragglanssteklar. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Kragglanssteklar
pallidiceps

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Escape the noisy downtown street, and enter through the yellow ceramic tiles into the 19th century courtyard of Fekete, a hip café and all-day-breakfast restaurant. The marble well in the center of the tranquil courtyard is one of those Budapest surprises hiding behind many sooty facades. Weather permitting, enjoy your morning coffee in the open-air courtyard.
Fekete serves a range of on-trend dishes like shakshuka (€6), granola (€4), and quiche (€4). Pricey new-wave coffee, both espresso-based and hand pour-overs, are also available along with bottled craft beers to help lift the mood. The inside is decorated according to contemporary design trends, featuring small wooden tables, Edison light bulbs, and a communal table doubling as the counter space.
Fekete is a popular tourist destination, and since the space is small, there's often a wait for tables, especially on weekends. The place is most enjoyable during the warmer months once the spacious courtyard has opened.


text:
Q: How to make my user input as a variable to make a folder (c)ToTheMaker
I found this code here and I'm going to use it but the only problems is I want it to have a user input that will create the folders
For example: "Enter number of folders:"
The value which the user will input will be used as a variable that will create the folders. How am I going to do that?
@ECHO OFF
SETLOCAL ENABLEDELAYEDEXPANSION

SET groupsize=10
SET n=1
SET nf=0

FOR %%f IN (*.txt) DO (
    IF !n!==1 (
        SET /A nf+=1
        MD Cake_!nf!
    )

    MOVE /Y "%%f" Cake_!nf!

    IF !n!==!groupsize! (
        SET n=1
    ) ELSE (
        SET /A n+=1
    )
)
ENDLOCAL
PAUSE

A: Executing in a command prompt window either help set or set /? results in printing several help pages into the console window for command SET which should be read carefully. The help explains also set /P for prompting user for a value or string.
@echo off
set "FolderCount=1"
set /P "FolderCount=Enter number of folders (default: %FolderCount%): "
for /L %%N in (1,1,%FolderCount%) do md "Folder%%N"
set "FolderCount="

This little batch code defines the environment variable FolderCount with value 1 as default value which is used when the user hits just key RETURN or ENTER on prompt.
The user is asked next for the number of folders to create. The string entered by the user is assigned to environment variable FolderCount. The user hopefully enters a positive number and not something different.
The FOR loop creates the folders in current directory with name Folder and the current number appended which is automatically incremented by 1 on each loop run starting with value 1.
The last line deletes the environment variable FolderCount not needed anymore.
For understanding the used commands and how they work, open a command prompt window, execute there the following commands, and read entirely all help pages displayed for each command very carefully.

*

*echo /?

*for /?

*md /?

*set /?
Edit: The final batch code for the entire task with moving the text files, too.
@echo off
rem Delayed expansion required for variable FolderIndex in FOR loop.
rem Command setlocal additionally creates a new environment variable
rem table with copying all existing variables to the new table.
setlocal EnableDelayedExpansion

rem Ask the batch user for number of subfolders to create and create them.
set "FolderCount=1"
set /P "FolderCount=Enter number of folders (default: %FolderCount%): "
for /L %%N in (1,1,%FolderCount%) do md "Folder%%N"

rem Move all *.txt files from current folder into the created subfolders.
set "FolderIndex=0"
for %%F in (*.txt) do (
    set /A FolderIndex+=1
    move /Y "%%~F" "Folder!FolderIndex!\%%~nxF"
    if !FolderIndex! == %FolderCount% set "FolderIndex=0"
)

rem Restore previous environment which results in destroying
rem current environment table with FolderIndex and FolderCount.
endlocal

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Thrilling roller coasters, exhilarating rides and captivating shows are just a few of the attractions visitors will find when they visit Fiesta Texas in San Antonio. This wonderpark of amusement is on the bucket list of most tourists when they visit our great city. As one of the most popular amusement parks in the nation, Fiesta Texas offers a fun-filled day full of adventure for all ages. Part of the renowned Six Flags group, this park provides a world-class experience for both locals and tourists seeking fun in the sun! For more information, visit https://www.sixflags.com/fiestatexas.
Fiesta Texas is a unique adventure for visitors touring San Antonio, offering thrilling rides, daring roller coasters and live entertainment daily.


text:
/*
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */
package com.facebook.presto.sql.analyzer;

import com.facebook.presto.sql.tree.DereferenceExpression;
import com.facebook.presto.sql.tree.Expression;
import com.facebook.presto.sql.tree.Identifier;
import com.facebook.presto.sql.tree.QualifiedName;
import com.facebook.presto.sql.tree.WithQuery;
import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableMap;

import javax.annotation.concurrent.Immutable;

import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Optional;

import static com.facebook.presto.sql.analyzer.SemanticExceptions.ambiguousAttributeException;
import static com.facebook.presto.sql.analyzer.SemanticExceptions.missingAttributeException;
import static com.google.common.base.MoreObjects.toStringHelper;
import static com.google.common.base.Preconditions.checkArgument;
import static com.google.common.collect.Iterables.getOnlyElement;
import static java.util.Objects.requireNonNull;

@Immutable
public class Scope
{
    private final Optional<Scope> parent;
    private final boolean queryBoundary;
    private final RelationId relationId;
    private final RelationType relation;
    private final Map<String, WithQuery> namedQueries;

    public static Scope create()
    {
        return builder().build();
    }

    public static Builder builder()
    {
        return new Builder();
    }

    private Scope(
            Optional<Scope> parent,
            boolean queryBoundary,
            RelationId relationId,
            RelationType relation,
            Map<String, WithQuery> namedQueries)
    {
        this.parent = requireNonNull(parent, "parent is null");
        this.relationId = requireNonNull(relationId, "relationId is null");
        this.queryBoundary = queryBoundary;
        this.relation = requireNonNull(relation, "relation is null");
        this.namedQueries = ImmutableMap.copyOf(requireNonNull(namedQueries, "namedQueries is null"));
    }

    public Optional<Scope> getOuterQueryParent()
    {
        Scope scope = this;
        while (scope.parent.isPresent()) {
            if (scope.queryBoundary) {
                return scope.parent;
            }
            scope = scope.parent.get();
        }

        return Optional.empty();
    }

    public Optional<Scope> getLocalParent()
    {
        if (!queryBoundary) {
            return parent;
        }

        return Optional.empty();
    }

    public RelationId getRelationId()
    {
        return relationId;
    }

    public RelationType getRelationType()
    {
        return relation;
    }

    public ResolvedField resolveField(Expression expression, QualifiedName name)
    {
        return tryResolveField(expression, name).orElseThrow(() -> missingAttributeException(expression, name));
    }

    public Optional<ResolvedField> tryResolveField(Expression expression)
    {
        QualifiedName qualifiedName = asQualifiedName(expression);
        if (qualifiedName != null) {
            return tryResolveField(expression, qualifiedName);
        }
        return Optional.empty();
    }

    private static QualifiedName asQualifiedName(Expression expression)
    {
        QualifiedName name = null;
        if (expression instanceof Identifier) {
            name = QualifiedName.of(((Identifier) expression).getName());
        }
        else if (expression instanceof DereferenceExpression) {
            name = DereferenceExpression.getQualifiedName((DereferenceExpression) expression);
        }
        return name;
    }

    public Optional<ResolvedField> tryResolveField(Expression node, QualifiedName name)
    {
        return resolveField(node, name, 0, true);
    }

    private Optional<ResolvedField> resolveField(Expression node, QualifiedName name, int fieldIndexOffset, boolean local)
    {
        List<Field> matches = relation.resolveFields(name);
        if (matches.size() > 1) {
            throw ambiguousAttributeException(node, name);
        }
        else if (matches.size() == 1) {
            return Optional.of(asResolvedField(getOnlyElement(matches), fieldIndexOffset, local));
        }
        else {
            if (isColumnReference(name, relation)) {
                return Optional.empty();
            }
            if (parent.isPresent()) {
                return parent.get().resolveField(node, name, fieldIndexOffset + relation.getAllFieldCount(), local && !queryBoundary);
            }
            return Optional.empty();
        }
    }

    private ResolvedField asResolvedField(Field field, int fieldIndexOffset, boolean local)
    {
        int relationFieldIndex = relation.indexOf(field);
        int hierarchyFieldIndex = relation.indexOf(field) + fieldIndexOffset;
        return new ResolvedField(this, field, hierarchyFieldIndex, relationFieldIndex, local);
    }

    public boolean isColumnReference(QualifiedName name)
    {
        Scope current = this;
        while (current != null) {
            if (isColumnReference(name, current.relation)) {
                return true;
            }
            current = current.parent.orElse(null);
        }

        return false;
    }

    private static boolean isColumnReference(QualifiedName name, RelationType relation)
    {
        while (name.getPrefix().isPresent()) {
            name = name.getPrefix().get();
            if (!relation.resolveFields(name).isEmpty()) {
                return true;
            }
        }
        return false;
    }

    public Optional<WithQuery> getNamedQuery(String name)
    {
        if (namedQueries.containsKey(name)) {
            return Optional.of(namedQueries.get(name));
        }

        if (parent.isPresent()) {
            return parent.get().getNamedQuery(name);
        }

        return Optional.empty();
    }

    @Override
    public String toString()
    {
        return toStringHelper(this)
                .addValue(relationId)
                .toString();
    }

    public static final class Builder
    {
        private RelationId relationId = RelationId.anonymous();
        private RelationType relationType = new RelationType();
        private final Map<String, WithQuery> namedQueries = new HashMap<>();
        private Optional<Scope> parent = Optional.empty();
        private boolean queryBoundary;

        public Builder withRelationType(RelationId relationId, RelationType relationType)
        {
            this.relationId = requireNonNull(relationId, "relationId is null");
            this.relationType = requireNonNull(relationType, "relationType is null");
            return this;
        }

        public Builder withParent(Scope parent)
        {
            checkArgument(!this.parent.isPresent(), "parent is already set");
            this.parent = Optional.of(parent);
            return this;
        }

        public Builder withOuterQueryParent(Scope parent)
        {
            checkArgument(!this.parent.isPresent(), "parent is already set");
            this.parent = Optional.of(parent);
            this.queryBoundary = true;
            return this;
        }

        public Builder withNamedQuery(String name, WithQuery withQuery)
        {
            checkArgument(!containsNamedQuery(name), "Query '%s' is already added", name);
            namedQueries.put(name, withQuery);
            return this;
        }

        public boolean containsNamedQuery(String name)
        {
            return namedQueries.containsKey(name);
        }

        public Scope build()
        {
            return new Scope(parent, queryBoundary, relationId, relationType, namedQueries);
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Attorney refiles lawsuit against W.Va. AG
By Lawrence Smith | Apr 3, 2012
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Legal Newsline) - A Summers County attorney is again alleging the West Virginia Attorney General's Office used bait-and-switch tactics in offering her a job.
Jenny A. Bonham on March 8 filed a breach of contract suit against Attorney General Darrell McGraw in Kanawha Circuit Court. In her complaint, Bonham, 49, of Hinton, alleges she was hired as an assistant attorney general to work near her home only to be reassigned to another part of the state and later discharged in less than two weeks.
Bonham on Oct. 27 filed a similar suit against McGraw. However, it was dismissed a month later on a motion filed by the Office's outside legal counsel, Billie Jo Streyle and James C. Marshall III, on the grounds Bonham did not file a 30-day pre-suit notice.
In the suit, Bonham says she applied for an assistant AG position representing the Division of Motor Vehicles in cases before the Office of Administrative Appeals in the counties closest to her. In Bonham's case those were Mercer, Greenbrier and Raleigh counties.
According to the suit, Bonham was hired on Oct. 29, 2010, by Managing Deputy Attorney General Barbara Allen. She started work three days later.
On Nov. 4, Bonham began working in the Greenbrier Valley-area. However, by that afternoon, Bonham alleges Allen sent her a message to an outdated e-mail address reassigning her to the eastern panhandle.
In her suit, Bonham avers on the date she was hired, she provided DMV her current telephone number, and e-mail address. Though the suit is unclear what happened in the interim, Bonham maintains Allen on Nov. 15 "acknowledged the impossibility of the assignment and discharged [Bonham] from her employment."
Sometime following her dismissal, Bonham alleges she submitted a bill to the AG's Office for the work she performed. Though the suit does not specify the total hours she worked, Bonham billed at $200 an hour.
Upon receiving the bill, the AG's Office refused to pay it. Though the Office failed to sign her on as state employee, Bonham says she was told she "would be paid as an employee at the rate of pay for the job for which she was hired."
However, on an unspecified date, Bonham alleges the Office, despite its refusal to do so initially, asked her to provide information to be paid as a vender instead of an employee. That hit a snag due to Allen making "false claims regarding contacting [Bonham] for payment arrangement."
Specifically, Bonham alleges Allen "left a detailed message on voice mail, which such voice mail did not exist at the time and currently does not exist."
In her suit, Bonham alleges since Nov. 15, 2010, the AG's Office has "made it impossible for [her] to be paid properly in one way or another, as vendor or employee." Along with judgment for $35,000, she seeks liquidated damages triple the judgment, 30 days wages and benefits, credit for state employment, 10 percent pre-judgment interest from Nov. 17, 2010, court costs and attorney fees.
She is represented by her husband, John T. Bonham II.
Currently, the case is assigned to Judge Jennifer Bailey. However, in Bonham's previous suit, Bailey recused herself citing previously hiring Allen, and serving with her as co-counsel in unspecified litigation.
Want to get notified whenever we write about ?
Sign-up Next time we write about , we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.
Mathematician says Janssen's market share of opioids low while state says figuring is skewed
By John Sammon | Jul 17, 2019
Lawyers could sue hospitals, farmers and sewage plants if Congress passes PFAS measure
By Daniel Fisher | Jul 17, 2019
NYC court boots Texas woman's talc/cancer lawsuit against J&J; Using baby powder on a plane not strong enough connection
By Karen Kidd | Jul 17, 2019
New York complaint alleges Virginia retailer part of scheme trafficking untaxed cigarettes
Labeling for Scotch whisky at issue in lawsuit against Virginia Distillery; Company says label is 'upfront'
LITTLER MENDELSON: Littler Shareholder Whitney Ferrer Appointed Atlanta Office Managing Shareholder
By Press release submission | Jul 17, 2019
Thank you for signing up for Legal Newsline Alerts! Please select the 0 organizations you wish to subscribe to.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
If Miller returns to Blues, he'll have to beat out Allen
By Mike HalfordApr 29, 2014, 1:46 PM EDT
To hear Doug Armstrong explain it, the Blues' starting goalie next season might be a guy that didn't play a single minute this year.
Jake Allen, the 23-year-old prospect who played exclusively in AHL Chicago this season, will be one of the two goalies St. Louis carries next season — and apparently has a legit shot at being the No. 1.
"Jake Allen's partner is going to have to hold Jake Allen out," Armstrong said, per the Belleville News-Democrat. "He's earned the right — he will be one of the two. Who his partner will be will be discussed at the appropriate time, and that will be over the next few weeks."
In-house options for Allen's partner are Ryan Miller and Brian Elliott, both pending UFAs. Here's what Armstrong said about the possibility of re-signing Miller, his big acquisition at the trade deadline:
Armstrong on Ryan Miller (1/2): "It's a two way street with Ryan right now. He has opportunities." #stlblues
— Lou Korac (@lkorac10) April 29, 2014
More Armstrong on Miller: "(I want to) see where he thinks we're at, see if he even has any interest in being a St. Louis Blue." #stlblues
Armstrong's right in that Miller does have opportunities. The Capitals and Islanders don't have a bonafide No. 1 goalie; Pittsburgh is one Marc-Andre Fleury meltdown away from looking for another option in net and, if Miller wants to be in California as speculation has suggested, San Jose now has questions in goal after Antti Niemi was parked in Game 6 in favor of Alex Stalock.
It'll be curious to hear if Armstrong's comments will affect Miller's decision to stay in St. Louis. It's no secret the organization is very high on Allen — he was the 34th overall pick in 2008, made the NHL's All-Rookie team in 2013 and captured the Aldege "Baz" Bastien Award this year as the American League's top goalie — but he has a pretty small NHL resume, consisting of exactly 15 games.
Are the Blues, a team built to win now, really willing to hand the goalie reins to such an inexperienced guy? Or are Armstrong's comments just posturing, trying to show Miller the Blues aren't totally dependent on his return?
Tags: Alex Stalock, Antti Niemi, Brian Elliott, Marc-Andre Fleury, Pittsburgh Penguins, Ryan Miller, San Jose Sharks, St. Louis Blues


A vibration survey was carried on this Ball Mill with a duel pinion drive. The vibration is high in all planes on both sides of the Mill or both pinion drives. The measurements were similar in velocity on the motor, gearbox and both pinion bearings.
signal processing and analysis in ball mill[C]// Proceedings of the … include vibration analysis, fault diagnosis, nonlinear dynamic … Machinery Vibration Limits#8 pumps, compressors, pulp refiners, ball mills, furnaces and piping systems.


text:
Or play on
RMG ONLINE
High 5 Games Granted Michigan Online Casino Supplier License
Titles from the casino games provider will be available on day one at goldennuggetcasino.com
New York, NY (December 15, 2020) – High 5 Games (High 5) today announced that it has been issued an online casino supplier license by the Michigan Gaming Control Board. The license allows High 5 to hit the ground running with Golden Nugget Online Casino as one its key partners, and ultimately work with every online casino operator as the market in Michigan expands.
Anthony Singer, CEO and founder of High 5 Games, commented:
"Following years of success in New Jersey, choosing Golden Nugget as a key partner for our Michigan launch was a no-brainer. As a market leader with multiple Operator of the Year awards, the team at Golden Nugget knows how to deliver an incredible online casino experience. We've always loved working with them in New Jersey, and now that we're ready to go with our Michigan license, we're thrilled to get to build upon that relationship."
Michigan online casinos are expected to begin operation in early 2021. High 5's suite of casino games will be available on day one at Golden Nugget's Michigan online casino.
Warren Steven, Senior Director, Golden Nugget Online Gaming said
"High 5 Games has been a long-standing partner of ours and has been an integral part of our success thus far in New Jersey. We're excited to extend our relationship to Michigan where goldennuggetcasino.com will continue to demonstrate our never-ending commitment to our players by providing them with the best online casino experience."
It should come as no surprise that High 5's lineup of games will be available at Golden Nugget on day one. Golden Nugget is one of High 5's many casino partners in New Jersey, and over 100 High 5 titles are available at Golden Nugget's New Jersey online casino.
A licensed supplier in the Garden State, High 5 has been entertaining players there since 2012. It's a success story that High 5 plans to replicate in Michigan and across the United States as more states get into the regulated online casino business.
Through its own proprietary gaming platform and integrations with a number of partners, High 5 is well-positioned to work with every operator and bring the High 5 experience to a whole new world of players — in Michigan and beyond as more states become available.
About Golden Nugget
Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc. is a leading online gaming company that is owned by a company wholly owned by Tilman J. Fertitta. It is considered a market leader by its peers and was first to bring Live Dealer and Live Casino Floor to the United States online gaming market. GNOG was the recipient of 15 eGaming Review North America Awards, including the coveted "Operator of the Year" award in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
As previously reported, on June 28, 2020, GNOG entered into a purchase agreement with Landcadia Holdings II, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCA) ("Landcadia II"), a special purpose acquisition company, pursuant to which GNOG will become a public company listed on Nasdaq. Landcadia II has filed a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") for the Special Meeting to be held in connection with its Business Combination with GNOG. Landcadia II's stockholders and other interested persons are advised to read the definitive proxy statement and documents incorporated by reference therein filed in connection with the Business Combination, as these materials contain important information about GNOG, Landcadia II and the Business Combination. The definitive proxy statement and other relevant materials for the Special Meeting were mailed to stockholders of Landcadia II as of the Record Date. Landcadia II's stockholders may also obtain copies of the definitive proxy statement and other documents filed with the SEC that will be incorporated by reference therein, without charge, at the SEC's web site at www.sec.gov, or by directing a request to: Landcadia Holdings II, Inc., 1510 West Loop South, Houston, Texas 77027, Attention: General Counsel, (713) 850-1010. www.goldennuggetcasino.com
About High 5 Games
Founded in 1995, High 5 Games is laser focused on making an impression through innovative casino content for the land-based, mobile, online, and social markets. With a collection of over 500 casino games, its own full casino platform, and a strong history of entertaining players all over the planet, the casino technology company is highly respected in the B2C and B2B social and online gaming worlds. High 5 Games holds licences and game certifications in multiple jurisdictions around the world. To find out more about High 5 Games, please visitwww.high5games.com or contact Sales@high5games.com.
Discover up to One Million Ways to Win in High 5 Games' latest release
High 5 Games' Fan-Favorite Character Returns in a Brand New Title
NJ Corporate Office:
1200 MacArthur Boulevard
Malta Corporate Office:
SOHO The Strand
Fawwara Building
Triq I-Imsida, Gzira – GZR 1401
Bulgaria Corporate Office
Regus - Sofia, Parliament
Landmark Building, 5th floor
14 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd.
Sofia, 1000, Bulgaria
IR@H5G.com
Business Development:
Sales@H5G.com
MR@H5G.com
Careers@H5G.com
High 5 Casino
Shake the Sky
High 5 Vegas
Electri5 Casino
Casino Support Email:
Support@H5G.com
Gambling Support:
High 5 Games are licensed and/or certified and regulated by the following authorities
© Copyright 1995-2021 High 5 Games. All rights reserved.


text:
14.1040, All: Amazing Prizes for 'Just $5'
LINGUIST List linguist at linguistlist.org
Mon Apr 7 19:55:18 UTC 2003
Previous message: 14.1039, TOC: Current Issues in Language Planning, 3/1 (2002)
Next message: 14.1041, TOC: Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
LINGUIST List:  Vol-14-1040. Mon Apr 7 2003. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 14.1040, All: Amazing Prizes for 'Just $5'
Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona
Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Richard John Harvey <richard at linguistlist.org>
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================
Date:  7 Apr 2003 19:45:21 -0000
From:  linguist at linguistlist.org
Subject:  The LINGUIST List Publisher Prize Draw - Amazing Prizes for Just $5
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Dear Linguists,
***      Fund Drive 2003     ***
*** Target: $50000           ***
*** Total So Far: $35975.57  ***
*** Only $14024.43 to go!    ***
The LINGUIST List 'Just $5' Request
Did you know that with a donation of 'Just $5' you will be entered
into The LINGUIST List Publisher Prize Draw.
(If every one of our 17000+ subscribers donated 'Just $5' we would
raise $85000 - that's $35000 more than we need!)
And what could you win? Many of our supporting publishers have very
kindly donated some amazing linguistic prizes that are well beyond the
call of duty. These prizes are either serious publications that any
self-respecting linguist would love on their bookshelf, or
subscriptions to top-notch linguistics journals and online
services. All are worth a lot more than $5.
Find out more, including rules etc., at:
http://linguistlist.org/prizedraw.html
The list of prizes is at the bottom of this email - please take a
moment to look over what's on offer.
DONATE - Don't Hesitate: http://linguistlist.org/donate.html
Instructions of How To Donate: http://linguistlist.org/donation.html
The LINGUIST List Publisher Prize Draw
- ------------------------------------
~CASCADILLA PRESS
The wonderful people at Cascadilla Press has generously offered two
WCCFL 18-21 Proceedings on CD-ROM. Each CD-ROM contains the
complete year's Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, with all the papers in PDF format. The CD-ROM works on
MacOS and Windows. For tables of contents, see
http://www.cascadilla.com/wccfl.html. This set of 4 CD-ROMs is worth
$80.00.
Many Morphologies, edited by Paul Boucher. This new book contains
original peer-reviewed articles by leading researchers such as Luigi
Burzio and Joseph Emonds, and could give you fresh insights into
research problems you've long wanted to answer. For a table of
contents, see http://www.cascadilla.com/manym.html. This paperback is
worth $28.95.
~ELSEVIER SCIENCE
Our good friends at Elsevier Science have donated this super
Free access to ScienceDirect ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/ )for a
year. With over 1,700 journals online and millions of peer-reviewed
articles, this is the world's best resource for research journals,
abstract databases and reference works; this includes over 30
linguistics journals. This subscription offers full access to
ScienceDirect, which is normally only available to institutions, and
would cost thousands of pounds! Thank you for the huge generosity
Elsevier.
~THE MIT PRESS
The MIT Press is offering the following subscriptions - thanks guys!
A year's subscription to Linguistic Inquiry.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=C477A1A7-109E-4141-8B95-9BD940021C4F&ttype=4&tid=6
A year's subsciption to Computational Linguistics.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=C477A1A7-109E-4141-8B95-9BD940021C4F&ttype=4&tid=10
~OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Oxford English Dictionary is 75 this year and to mark the occasion
Oxford University Press have kindly offered the following online
subscription - Happy 75th Birthday OED!
A free one year individual subscription to OED Online
( http://www.oed.com/ ).
The Oxford English Dictionary is the accepted
authority on the evolution of the English language over the last
millennium. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and
pronunciation of over half a million words, both present and past. It
traces the usage of words through 2.5 million quotations from a wide
range of international English language sources, from classic
literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery
books. The OED covers words from across the English-speaking world,
from North America to South Africa, from Australia and New Zealand to
the Caribbean. It also offers the best in etymological analysis and in
listing of variant spellings, and it shows pronunciation using the
International Phonetic Alphabet. This subscription is worth 350 plus
tax ($550).
~SUOMEN KIELITIETEELLINEN YHDISTYS
Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys (The Linguistic Association of
Finland) have kindly donated this subscription - kiitoksia oikein
paljon.
A year's subscription to the SKY Journal of Linguistics.
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/skyjol.shtml
Just $5 would make a world of difference to us here at LINGUIST


The article discusses about the various ways described that states how can one be considered as normal.
Are you afraid that you are having mental illness?
The first line i want to tell you is that all Human being are not perfect. I certainly believe that we can not find a normal person in the world because normality itself is controversial. There are only variations from mild to moderate and moderate to extreme. As from the study of genes (human genome project) it is proven that all human beings shares 99% of the same genes. Only 1% of the genes are different from each individual. These 1 % of the genes give so many characteristics and they makes you vary from others. Such genes are based on the genetic and environmental factors of the person.
Are you a father, mother ,brother, sister, relative or a friend of a so called "abnormal person"?
then you know the pain of that word- "abnormal". How can we say that we are normal? Normality is defined as a state of complete physical ,mental and social well being. Another definition says that normality are a set of patterns of behavior or personality traits that are typical or that confirm to some standard of proper and acceptable ways of behaving and being.
How can we say one individual is abnormal if we are not normal?
There are so many children and adults who face the disorders in the body and mind. In abnormal psychology there are some models which were put forward to define normality.
Social model : The person should behave as social norms says.Only then the person can said to be normal in the basis of this model. I think the main drawback of this theory is that revolution comes from bending the edge of social norms and breaking the rules like "Che".
Statistical model : This model says there are only variations of normality and no typical objective type normality. In this model a genius and a less intelligent person are considered as abnormal.
Medical model : If a person is showing no symptoms in his body and the mind then we can consider as a normal human being.
Adaptive model : The person must have an adaptive level of functioning in various situations. This theory is born from the Evolutionary theory by Charles Darwin.
As a process : In this model normality is considered as a continuous process until death. Normal process is the 'n' result of interacting systems.
Normality as undefined : This model suggest that there are no definitions possible for normality.
Personal well being : They says normality is an introspective process. One should analyse it themselves and decide whether he is normal or not.
There are drawbacks to all these theorems. So it is really impossible to define normality. I have seen people saying that we should not trust abnormal mad people. They will attack us. I have seen kids who are less intelligent are thrown out to orphanages and streets. They need shelters and good habitat to live not the sharp words. So lend an helping hand.
My question is will you marry a woman or a man by knowing that he/she had a brother who is mentally ill? I think your answer is a big NO. But if yes then your heart and thoughts are broader. Those who said is no is not aware some basic factors about mental illness and abnormal psychology. Abnormal psychology is the study of abnormal behavior of people. Such a broad terminology is what makes abnormal psychology interesting. Abnormal psychology studies various topics from basic phobias to Schizophrenia.
We all have about 1% of chance to get a abnormal disorder. But if you marry a member from a family which has a certain background of a mental illness, the chance may increase up to 5% that is really a low percentage compared to other families who are not having mental illness in the genetic pattern. So it is really no harm if you marry a member from such a family.
There people who believes that they are having mental illnesses like hallucinations and i want to tell that by doubting yourself you are weakening your mental power. According to the studies people who are introvert are having such problems mainly because the didn't have a way to express such feelings to other individuals. If you certainly believe that go find a psychologist and do a check up.


text:
2015 WI 66
Case No.:
2013AP1345-CR ��
Complete Title:
State of Wisconsin,
��������� Plaintiff-Respondent,
���� v.
Andrew M. Obriecht,
��������� Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
(Reported at 353 Wis. 2d 542, 846 N.W. 2d 479)
(Ct. App. 2014 � Published)
PDC No: 2014 WI App 42
Opinion Filed:
Submitted on Briefs:
Oral Argument:
Source of Appeal:
Circuit�
Judge:
William E. Hanrahan
Justices:
Concurred:
BRADLEY, J., joined by ABRAHAMSON and CROOKS, JJ. concur (Opinion filed).
Dissented:
Not Participating:
Attorneys:
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs by Colleen Marion, assistant state public defender, and oral argument by Colleen Marion.
For the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was argued by Katherine D. Lloyd, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Brad D. Schimel, attorney general.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Jeff Scott Olson, Madison, on behalf of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
This opinion is subject to further editing and modification.� The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports.�
No.� 2013AP1345-CR
(L.C. No.
1998CF271)
STATE OF WISCONSIN��������������� �� :
IN SUPREME COURT
Diane M. Fremgen
Clerk of Supreme Court
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.� Reversed.�
�1�� PATIENCE DRAKE ROGGENSACK, C.J. This sentence credit case arises from Andrew M. Obriecht's convictions of seven misdemeanors and one felony, wherein we review a decision of the court of appeals[1] that affirmed the circuit court's[2] denial of Obriecht's motion for sentence credit.[3]� The circuit court agreed that Obriecht was due sentence credit, but the court refused to apply the credit to his incarceration, and instead, applied the credit to Obriecht's parole following incarceration.�
�2�� As we explain below, Obriecht was not sentenced for the felony conviction until probation for that conviction was revoked.� At that time, he was eligible to receive sentence credit against the felony sentence the court imposed.� However, no sentence credit was given.� Obriecht was paroled from incarceration for the felony conviction and subsequently his parole was revoked.� It was at the revocation of parole that Obriecht first requested the sentence credit that is now before us.�
�3�� We conclude that because Obriecht had completed the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions when his parole from incarceration for the felony was revoked and he first requested sentence credit, the only sentence to which sentence credit could be applied was the indeterminate sentence for the felony conviction.� We also conclude that not all of the days of Obriecht's custody prior to his 2001 incarceration at Dodge Correctional Institution were in connection with the conduct that led to the felony sentence.� We further conclude that although Obriecht had 105 days of custody for which he had not yet received sentence credit when his parole was revoked, as we explain below, only 42 days of custody were in connection with the course of conduct that led to the felony sentence.� Therefore, 42 of the 105 days of custody prior to Obriecht's 2001 incarceration should have been applied to his term of reincarceration for the felony conviction.� Wis. Stat. � 973.155 (2011-12).[4]� We also conclude that when a convicted defendant's parole is revoked, the parolee's indeterminate sentence that was issued by the circuit court resumes running so that it is available to accept sentence credit.� Wis. Stat. � 304.072(4).� Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's denial of Obriecht's motion for sentence credit.[5]�
I.� BACKGROUND
�4�� The criminal violations that underlie this dispute all occurred before Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS) commenced.[6]� Obriecht was charged with and convicted of seven misdemeanors and one felony.� Prior to serving his sentences, he was in custody in 1998, 1999 and 2001.� Upon conviction, he was given some sentence credit for these periods of custody.� The parties agree that Obriecht accumulated more sentence credit than the court awarded.� However, the parties differ on how the court should have applied the requested sentence credit because Obriecht first requested sentence credit after his parole from the felony sentence was revoked.�
�5�� The periods of confinement are somewhat hard to follow, as are their connections with the sentences given.� Two circumstances lead to this difficulty.� First, Obriecht was arrested and convicted of seven misdemeanors and a felony, but he was sentenced initially only on the misdemeanors and given probation for the felony.� Second, Obriecht did not request the sentence credit that is at issue here until he had completed the misdemeanor sentences and parole from incarceration for the felony had been revoked.�
�6�� In an effort to clarify, we begin by setting out the periods of Obriecht's custody that was in connection with both the misdemeanors and the felony.� We then identify custody that was imposed solely in connection with the misdemeanors.� Next, we identify the sentence credit given and apply it to the 1998, 1999, and 2001 custody[7] beginning with the 1998 period of custody.� In that way, the sentences imposed connect with the credit given and the mathematical calculation of the custody for which sentence credit was not given.��
�7�� On February 2, 1998 Obriecht was arrested and charged with seven misdemeanors and one felony.� He was released on bail pending trial on October 16, 1998, resulting in custody of 257 days.�
�8�� On June 30, 1999, Obriecht was convicted by a jury of all eight counts, seven misdemeanors and one felony, and he was taken into custody.� On November 19, 1999, Obriecht was sentenced on the misdemeanor convictions, whereon he received a combined indeterminate sentence of seven years.� On the felony conviction, the court withheld sentence and placed Obriecht on 12 years probation.� The custody from June 30 to November 19 resulted in additional custody of 142 days.� ��
�9�� Obriecht continued in custody until December 20, 1999, when his misdemeanor sentences were stayed pending appeal and he was released on bail.� The period of custody from sentencing on November 19, 1999 to bail on December 20, 1999 resulted in additional custody of 32 days. �
�10� On March 21, 2001, the stay of Obriecht's misdemeanor sentences was lifted and he was held in jail.� Obriecht entered Dodge Correctional Institution on April 21, 2001 to begin his sentence on the misdemeanor convictions, resulting in additional custody of 31 days.� Therefore, Obriecht's total custody prior to his April 21, 2001 incarceration was 462 days (257 + 142 + 32 + 31 days).[8]��
�11� In regard to sentence credit, the circuit court initially granted Obriecht 326 days of sentence credit when he was sentenced for the misdemeanor convictions.� On March 21, 2001, when the circuit court lifted the stay pending appeal, the court granted an additional 31 days, for a total of 357 days of sentence credit.� However, Obriecht had spent a total of 462 days in custody.� Therefore, Obriecht was due an additional 105 days of sentence credit at that time.�
�12� On August 17, 2001, while he was incarcerated at Dodge Correctional Institution, Obriecht's probation on the felony conviction was revoked.� The circuit court sentenced him to an indeterminate seven-year sentence "[c]onsecutive to any other sentence."� No additional sentence credit was given.
�13� On March 22, 2011, Obriecht was released on parole from the indeterminate seven-year sentence for the felony conviction.[9]� Obriecht violated parole, and was returned to prison on February 1, 2013.
�14� On February 1, 2013, Obriecht, proceeding pro se, first requested 107 days of sentence credit.� Initially, the State did not object to Obriecht's request.� The circuit court agreed and "adjudged that 107 days sentence credit are due pursuant to � 973.155, Wisconsin Statutes."
�15� However, on March 21, 2013, the Department of Corrections (DOC) wrote to the circuit court asking the court to "clarify" Obriecht's amended judgment of conviction.� The DOC said that it read Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7) to mean that sentence credit awarded to one whose parole has been revoked was not applied to reincarceration, but rather, sentence credit should reduce parole time that may remain.�
�16� Obriecht disputed the DOC's interpretation of Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7), pro se.� Obriecht argued that Wis. Stat. � 973.155(5) requires sentence credit be applied to reduce incarceration.� Upon reconsideration, the circuit court agreed with the DOC, and on April 3, 2013, the court rescinded the application of 107 days of sentence credit to Obriecht's term of incarceration and applied the credit to any term of subsequent parole.[10]
�17� Obriecht appealed.� He argues that the circuit court should have applied 107 days of sentence credit to his period of reincarceration because all of the 107 days were incurred in connection with the crimes for which he was incarcerated prior to parole.[11]�
�18� The court of appeals concluded that the plain language of Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7)(am) and (b) required that Obriecht's sentence credit be applied to reduce parole rather than reincarceration ordered by the Department of Hearings and Appeals (DHA).� State v. Obriecht, 2014 WI App 42, �13, 353 Wis. 2d 542, 846 N.W.2d 479.� The court explained that � 302.11(7)(b) provided that a revoked parolee "'shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time'" ordered by the DHA.� Id. (quoting � 302.11(7)(b)).� Doing as Obriecht requested, the court concluded would violate the express terms of � 302.11(7)(b).� Id.
�19� Obriecht sought review, which we granted.� Before us, the State initially acknowledged that Obriecht was due sentence credit, but contended that sentence credit applied to any remaining time on parole because it could not be applied to reduce the length of reincarceration that the DHA ordered when Obriecht's parole was revoked.� At oral argument, the State shifted its argument and contended that Obriecht's custody was not sufficiently connected to the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed to merit sentence credit.� We address this argument, as well as those arguments that were briefed.�
�20� Obriecht contends that the circuit court erred in failing to grant sentence credit when he was sentenced for the felony conviction and he is seeking to correct that error.� The State focuses on a later period in time, i.e., when the DHA revoked Obriecht's subsequent parole from the felony sentence, and contends that Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7)(b) requires Obriecht to serve the full term of reincarceration that he was given by the DHA.� At oral argument, the State also contended that the sentence credit Obriecht requested is not sufficiently connected with the course of conduct for which he was sentenced.� They present two very different questions, and as we explain below, both Obriecht and the State are correct to some extent.���
A.� Standard of Review
�21� We review whether the circuit court correctly applied Obriecht's sentence credit to his parole rather than to his incarceration under the provisions of Wis. Stat. � 973.155.� We also consider Wis. Stat. � 304.072(4) and Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7).� Statutory interpretation and application present questions of law that we review independently while benefitting from prior decisions of other courts.� Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., 2008 WI 52, �14, 309 Wis. 2d 541, 749 N.W.2d 581.
B.� Sentence Credit
1.� General principles
�22� Statutory interpretation begins with the plain meaning of the statute.� State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, �45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110.� Context and structure of the statute are also important to the meaning of the statute.� Id., �46.�
�23� Tallying and awarding sentence credit originated as a matter of equal protection.� See Klimas v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 244, 249, 249 N.W.2d 285 (1977) (holding that an indigent person who could not make bail was denied a liberty interest if not given sentence credit for all time spent in custody).� Sentence credit is designed to afford fairness so that a person does not serve more time than that to which he or she is sentenced.� State v. Beets, 124 Wis. 2d 372, 379, 369 N.W.2d 382 (1985).
�24� When sentence credit is applied at the time of sentencing, in this case either at the sentencing for the misdemeanors or at the later sentencing for the felony, the circuit court should apply sentence credit to the term of incarceration.� See State v. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 66, �1, 242 Wis. 2d 426, 625 N.W.2d 655 (credit must be applied to incarceration term, not consecutive stayed sentence); Wis. Stat. � 973.155(3) (computing custody as if it were served time in the institution to which the defendant has been sentenced).
�25� In deciding whether to award sentence credit under Wis. Stat. � 973.155, a court must make two determinations:� (1) whether the defendant was "in custody" for the period under consideration, and (2) whether the custody was "in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed."� State v. Marcus Johnson, 2007 WI 107, �32, 304 Wis. 2d 318, 735 N.W.2d 505.� "Custody" means a detention status for which a defendant is subject to an escape charge if he leaves the place of detention.� State v. Magnuson, 2000 WI 19, �25, 233 Wis. 2d 40, 606 N.W.2d 536.��
2.� Obriecht's custody
�26� Whether Obriecht was "in custody" is not where the challenge lies in this case; but rather, whether the custody was "in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed" is our focus.� In that regard, we begin with Wis. Stat. � 973.155(1)(a), which provides in relevant part:
"actual days spent in custody" includes, without limitation by enumeration, confinement related to an offense for which the offender is ultimately sentenced, or for any other sentence arising out of the same course of conduct, which occurs:
1.�� While the offender is awaiting trial;
2.�� While the offender is being tried; and
3.�� While the offender is awaiting imposition of sentence after trial.
In order for the sentence to be "in connection with the course of conduct for which sentence was imposed," there must be a factual connection between the custody and the sentence.� State v. Elandis Johnson, 2009 WI 57, �65, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207.�
�27� When custody is at least "in part due to the conduct resulting in [a] new conviction," a court must award sentence credit under Wis. Stat. � 973.155(1)(b).� State v. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, �11, 300 Wis. 2d 583, 731 N.W.2d 646.� Here, the sentence for the felony conviction was issued subsequent to the sentences for the misdemeanor convictions as a consecutive sentence.�
�28� Because all of Obriecht's custody was not in connection with both the misdemeanor and felony sentences, it is important in our review to identify to which sentences the custody relates.� The first period of custody began on February 2, 1998 when Obriecht was arrested and charged with seven misdemeanors and one felony.� This period of custody ended on October 16, 1998, a period of 257 days, when he was released on bail.� These 257 days have a factual connection to the conduct that led to the sentences issued for both misdemeanors and felony; therefore, this period of custody was in connection with the course of conduct for which he subsequently was sentenced for both misdemeanor and felony convictions.� Elandis Johnson, 318 Wis. 2d 21, �66.�
�29� Obriecht was convicted by a jury of all eight counts on June 30, 1999, and he was taken into custody.� On November 19, 1999, Obriecht was sentenced on the misdemeanor convictions, but sentence was withheld on the felony conviction and Obriecht was placed on 12 years probation.� This 142-day period from conviction to sentencing was in connection with the conduct that led to sentencing for misdemeanors and felony.� No days in custody subsequent to November 19, 1999 were in connection with the felony sentence because probation is not a sentence.� State v. Edwards, 2013 WI App 51, �7, 347 Wis. 2d 526, 830 N.W.2d 109; Wis. Stat. � 973.155(1)(a).� However, Obriecht's custody did continue after sentencing on November 19, 1999, until he was released on bail pending appeal on December 20, 1999.� This additional 32 days of custody was solely in connection with the misdemeanor sentences.��
�30� On March 21, 2001, the stay of Obriecht's misdemeanor sentences pending appeal was lifted and he was taken into custody for transportation to prison to serve the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions. �Pre-incarceration custody ended when he entered Dodge Correctional Institution on April 21, 2001, adding custody of 31 days, which is in connection with the conduct that led to sentences for his misdemeanor convictions.� State v. Gilbert, 115 Wis. 2d 371, 380, 340 N.W.2d 511 (1983) (concluding that the "clear intent of sec. 973.155, Stats., is to grant credit for each day in custody regardless of the basis for the confinement as long as it is connected to the offense for which sentence is imposed.").�
�31� When Obriecht reached Dodge Correctional Institution, Obriecht had served 462 days in custody in connection with the conduct that gave rise to the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions.[12]� The circuit court had granted Obriecht 326 days sentence credit when he was sentenced for the misdemeanors and the court granted an additional 31 days of sentence credit upon transportation to Dodge Correctional Institution, for a total of 357 days sentence credit.� Therefore, 105 days that Obriecht had been in custody were not credited.���
�32� On August 17, 2001, Obriecht's probation for the felony conviction was revoked, and he was sentenced to a seven-year indeterminate sentence, consecutive to the misdemeanor sentences he was then serving.� No additional sentence credit was given when he was sentenced for the felony conviction.
�33� Obriecht was released from prison on parole from the felony sentence March 22, 2011.� On February 1, 2013, he was returned to prison for violating the conditions of his parole.� The State asserts that sentence credit awarded during Obriecht's most recent and final period of incarceration, following the revocation of parole, can be applied only to time that may remain for a subsequent parole.� This argument of the State is grounded in its interpretation of Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7).� The State also asserts that all of the days of custody in 1998, 1999, and 2001 for which sentence credit was not awarded did not arise from custody that was in connection with the course of conduct that resulted in the felony sentence.�
�34� We note that parole revocation does not involve the imposition of an additional criminal sanction.� See State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 81 Wis. 2d 376, 384-86, 260 N.W.2d 727 (1978) (explaining that parole revocation is civil in nature and that the sentence a defendant is required to serve on revocation is the sentence for the crime of which the defendant previously was convicted).� The DHA has limited discretion to return revoked parolees to prison up to the remainder of their original sentence and not beyond.� Id. at 386 (stating that the element of punishment upon revocation is tied to the sentence previously imposed).�
�35� We also consider Wis. Stat. � 304.072(4) to determine the effect of parole revocation on a defendant's sentence because the statute addresses that circumstance.� Section 304.072(4) provides:
The sentence of a revoked parolee or person on extended supervision resumes running on the day he or she is received at a correctional institution subject to sentence credit for the period of custody in a jail, correctional institution or any other detention facility pending revocation according to the terms of s. 973.155.
The "sentence" to which � 304.072(4) refers is the sentence that was issued by the circuit court subsequent to conviction.� We come to this conclusion because � 304.072(4) looks back at a sentence earlier commenced, i.e., the sentence "resumes running."� Therefore, when Obriecht's parole was revoked, the seven-year indeterminate sentence for Obriecht's felony conviction caused reincarceration.� Accordingly, the DHA's reincarceration order did not establish reincarceration as a new "sentence."� Id.� Rather, it was a continuation of the sentence meted out by the circuit court judge.� Therefore, if Obriecht had not received all the sentence credit that was available to apply to the felony sentence when that sentence was imposed, he could have received it when his parole was revoked.
�36� Stated otherwise, the computation of sentence credit is governed by Wis. Stat. � 973.155(3) that provides:� "The credit provided in sub. (1) or (1m) shall be computed as if the convicted offender had served such time in the institution to which he or she has been sentenced."� The plain language of � 973.155(3) demonstrates that Obriecht is entitled to have the total amount of time he must spend in prison reduced by the amount of time he has spent in custody outside of prison when custody is in connection with the conduct for which the sentence is imposed.� Elandis Johnson, 318 Wis. 2d 21, �66.� In addition, when sentences are consecutive, sentence credit is not issued to more than one sentence so long as the first sentence to be served is sufficient to receive the sentence credit at issue.� State v. Boettcher, 144 Wis. 2d 86, 93-95, 423 N.W.2d 533 (1988) (citing Doyle v. Elsea, 658 F.2d 512, 515 (1981) as Doyle interprets 18 U.S.C. � 3568 upon which � 973.155 was based).�
�37� As we explain, the custody first imposed should be applied to the sentence first imposed, with consecutive sentences.� As our discussion in the paragraphs above show, Obriecht's first period of custody extended 257 days, with the next period of custody extending 142 days.� Of the 399 days in custody, the circuit court granted 326 days as sentence credit against the misdemeanor sentences.�
�38� The next periods of custody occurred between sentencing and release on bail pending appeal, 32 days, and between revocation of bail and transportation to Dodge Correctional Institution, 31 days.� These periods of custody occurred solely in connection with conduct relating to the misdemeanor sentences because Obriecht was not being held for the felony conviction, on which the court had withheld sentence when it placed him on probation.�
�39� When Obriecht was transported to Dodge Correctional Institution, Obriecht had 73 days of custody in connection with the course of conduct that resulted in sentences for misdemeanor convictions and felony conviction.� He also had 63 days of pre-incarceration custody that occurred after sentencing for misdemeanors and his probation for the felony conviction.
�40� The circuit court granted 31 days of additional sentence credit when Obriecht was transported to Dodge Correctional Institution. �Because we apply sentence credit granted to the earliest period of custody eligible for the credit, we apply the 31 days of credit to the 73 days of custody yet remaining that were in connection with both misdemeanor sentences and subsequently issued felony sentence, leaving 42 days that were in connection with the conduct that led to the felony sentence.� Stated otherwise, we apply granted sentence credit to the longest outstanding days of custody that were in connection with the conduct that led to the sentence.
�41� As the State pointed out at oral argument, and as we have explained above, not all of the custody was in connection with the felony.� After all sentence credit was awarded, there remained 42 days that was in connection with the course of conduct that led to both the misdemeanor and felony sentences and 63 days that was in connection with the misdemeanor sentences, a period of 105 days.� Therefore, because the felony sentence was consecutive to the misdemeanor sentences and because 63 of the 105 days of custody that remained were in connection with the misdemeanors, only 42 days were in connection with the felony sentence.
�42� Obriecht's continuation of the felony sentence upon parole revocation is the seven-year indeterminate, consecutive sentence the circuit court imposed on August 17, 2001.� See Flowers, 81 Wis. 2d at 386 (stating "punishment in parole revocation is attributable to the crime for which the parolee was originally convicted and sentenced"); Wis. Stat. � 304.072(4) (stating sentence of a revoked parolee "resumes running").� Therefore, we conclude that on February 1, 2013 when Obriecht's parole was revoked and he was returned to prison, he should have received 42 days credit for custody that was in connection with conduct that led to the felony sentence, which sentence was available to accept such credit.� To do otherwise, would be unfair to Obriecht and cause him to suffer a longer period of incarceration for the felony conviction than the circuit court ordered.
�43� The court of appeals and the State, in part, relied on Wis. Stat. � 302.11, titled "Mandatory release," to hold that Obriecht's sentence credit applied to reduce his parole rather than reincarceration.� Obriecht, 353 Wis. 2d 542, �12.� Specifically, the court of appeals held that the � 302.11(7)(b) language that a parolee "shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time determined by the reviewing authority" would be violated if the court applied the sentence credit to the reincarceration period.� Id.; � 302.11(7)(b).�
�44� We can see where the court of appeals found a conflict between Obriecht's request and Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7).� However, we have applied the credit to the felony sentence in fairness to Obriecht, who should have received this credit on August 17, 2001 when he was sentenced on the felony conviction.��
�45� Furthermore, Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7) plainly applies to mandatory release, as indicated by its structure and statutory history.[13]� Paragraph (7)(b) first states the general rule that revoked parolees are not subject to early release; the next sentence provides a specific example that revoked parolees are not subject to mandatory release.� It does not address the problem caused by custody incurred before sentencing that was not granted at sentencing.�
�46� Our reading of Wis. Stat. � 302.11(7)(b) is confirmed by statutory history.� See Cnty. of Dane v. LIRC, 2009 WI 9, �27, 315 Wis. 2d 293, 759 N.W.2d 571 (explaining that statutory history is part of a plain meaning analysis).� To explain further, the predecessor to � 302.11(7)(b) provided mandatory release for revoked parolees.[14]� The legislature repealed the preceding statute and replaced it with language prohibiting mandatory release for revoked parolees in 1984, which explains the specific example in the statute.[15]�
�47� Wisconsin Stat. � 302.11(7)(am) also is not helpful in determining sentence credit under the facts before us.� Section 302.11(7)(am) makes express reference to application of sentence credit.� It provides for sentence credit in the context of a revocation order, citing both Wis. Stat. � 304.072 and Wis. Stat. � 973.155.� Furthermore, the � 302.11(7)(am) reference to "the entire sentence" does not affect our analysis.� It refers to the reincarceration required in Obriecht's revocation order.� However, it is Obriecht's sentence imposed by the circuit court that is modified by sentence credit. �Additionally, because our interpretation of � 973.155 resolves the question of Obriecht's sentence credit, we decline to address the issue of whether the court of appeals' application of � 302.11(7) violated equal protection.�
�48� We conclude that because Obriecht had completed the sentences for his misdemeanor convictions when his parole from incarceration for the felony was revoked and he first requested sentence credit, the only sentence to which sentence credit could be applied was the indeterminate sentence for the felony conviction.� We also conclude that not all of the days of Obriecht's custody prior to his 2001 incarceration at Dodge Correctional Institution were in connection with the conduct that led to the felony sentence.� We further conclude that although Obriecht had 105 days of custody for which he had not yet received sentence credit when his parole was revoked, as we have explained, only 42 days of custody were in connection with the course of conduct that led to the felony sentence.� Therefore, 42 of the 105 days of custody prior to Obriecht's 2001 incarceration should have been applied to his term of reincarceration for the felony conviction.� Wis. Stat. � 973.155.� We also conclude that when a convicted defendant's parole is revoked, the parolee's indeterminate sentence that was issued by the circuit court resumes running so that it is available to accept sentence credit.� Wis. Stat. � 304.072(4).� Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals decision that affirmed the circuit court's denial of Obriecht's motion for sentence credit.
By the Court.�The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
�49� ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (concurring).� I agree with the majority that when a defendant's parole is revoked, sentence credit should be applied to reduce the term of re-incarceration and not parole.
�50� We accepted review in this case in order to address that question so that future litigants would have clarity.� The petitioner asked a discreet question:
Do the sentence credit statute and the constitutional protections upon which it is based require time spent in "custody" to be credited against time spent in prison, as opposed to time spent on supervision?�
Answering that question does not require us to compute the number of days of sentence credit Obriecht should receive.�
�51� Nevertheless, the majority reaches out and endeavors to count the actual days of sentence credit due Obriecht in this unique case made complex by its multiple time periods, legal maneuvers, and convictions involved.� Numerous reasons illustrate the folly of the majority tackling this unbriefed issue.
�52� To begin, half of the record is missing or has been destroyed.� Notably, for computation purposes, it is the important half which covers the time periods at issue in this case.� Instead, we are left to cobble together the events based on a record with discrepancies between the portions of the record available and the parties' descriptions of events.
�53� Next, this case is moot and the computation of credit due for this defendant is meaningless. �Because Obriecht had completed his sentence by the time this case was heard, a determination of the exact number of days of credit he should have received will have no effect on him.
�54� Finally, by unnecessarily wading into the exact computation of sentence credit that Obriecht is owed, the majority risks unintentionally creating precedent that could be at odds with the significant purposes fulfilled by awarding sentence credit.� Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
�55� The complexity of the facts in this case is reflected in the background provided by the majority.� After Obriecht was arrested and charged with seven misdemeanors and a felony, he was in and out of custody for various reasons while awaiting trial, after sentencing, and again while his convictions were on appeal.� Majority op., ��7-10.� During this period he was awarded sentence credit on two separate occasions.� Id., �11.�
�56� The parties agree that Obriecht spent more time in custody than he was awarded.� This appeal arose from the circuit court's decision to apply the outstanding credit to Obriecht�s period of parole rather than the in-custody period of his sentence.
�57� After discussing the sentence credit statute, the majority announces that it must examine each period of time Obriecht spent in custody and determine which were related to his felony conviction, as that is the conviction to which he sought to apply sentence credit.� Id., �28.� This is followed by a detailed description of each of those time periods and a computation of the number of days that Obriecht should receive.� Id., ��28-32, 37-42.�
�58� The basis for the majority's computation of Obriecht's sentence credit is shaky at best.� Less than half of the record has been made available for our review.� Out of 272 record documents, only numbers 216 through 279 were transferred to this court. �Notably, all of the records received by this court post-date the time periods at issue by several years.� Thus, the details of when Obriecht was in custody have been cobbled together from various court filings and decisions and the representations of the parties.
�59� Even the representations of the parties leave doubt regarding the exact dates and time periods involved.� For example, although the parties stipulated that Obriecht had spent an extra 107 days in custody, this court could not reproduce that calculation.� Id., �17 n.11.� Instead it determines that the actual number of days was 105.� Id., �41.� Overall, little detail is contained in the parties' briefs regarding the time periods of Obriecht's custody as they were not disputing the calculation of the sentence credit he was owed.�
�60� The murky record should not have been a problem because the question presented to us did not require us to compute days of sentence credit owed.� The actual number at this point is moot because the defendant has completed his sentence.� It is further of questionable value given that the crimes involved all occurred pre-Truth-in-Sentencing.
�61� Not only is it unnecessary, but computing the exact number of days of sentence credit owed to Obriecht runs the risk of undermining the significant purposes behind sentence credit. �As this court has explained, "Wisconsin's sentence credit statute has its roots in the constitutional principle of equal protection and was an immediate response to this court's call for action in Klimas v. State, 75 Wis. 2d 244, 249 N.W.2d 285 (1977)."� State v. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, �20, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155. ��
�62� In Klimas, the court addressed a defendant's claim for sentence credit for the time he spent in pre-trial confinement because he could not afford bail.� The court acknowledged that this situation raised equal protection concerns, explaining that "[t]he failure to credit pre-trial time or pre-sentence time in custody as the result of indigency means that persons similarly situated except for financial means are subject to different periods of confinement for the same crime."� Klimas, 75 Wis. 2d at 248.� It then determined that "[t]he obvious method of rectifying the inequality is to credit the preconviction time in partial fulfillment of the sentence imposed upon conviction."� Id. at 249.
�63� Since Klimas, courts have acknowledged that the purpose behind awarding sentence credit extends beyond equal protection, encompassing fairness as well.� "[C]onfinement credit is designed to afford fairness��that a person not serve more time than that for which he is sentenced."� State v. Beets, 124 Wis. 2d 372, 379, 369 N.W.2d 382 (1985); see also State v. Johnson, 2009 WI 57, �31, 318 Wis. 2d 21, 767 N.W.2d 207 ("Wis. Stat. � 973.155 is designed to prevent a defendant from serving more time than his sentence or his sentences call for."); State v. Martel, 2003 WI 70, �24, 262 Wis. 2d 483, 664 N.W.2d 69 ("the remedial purpose of the sentence credit statute was 'to provide sentence credit in a wide range of situations' in order to 'afford fairness' to defendants").�
�64� The equal protection and fairness concerns underlying Wis. Stat. � 973.155 suggest that to the extent possible, a defendant should receive sentence credit for each day spent in custody.� To do otherwise would permit defendants with enough money to pay bail to serve shorter sentences than those that do not, and would cause some defendants to spend more time in custody than the sentence they received.�
�65� Here, the parties stipulated that Obriecht is entitled to 107 days of sentence credit.� Nevertheless, the majority concludes that Obriecht spent an extra 105 days in custody but can receive credit for only 42 days.� Neither the record nor the arguments present a clear reason for doing so.� This unnecessary reduction of sentence credit runs counter to the policies underlying sentence credit which provide that credit should be awarded for as many days in custody as possible and that a person serve no more time than that for which he is sentenced.���
�66� In contrast to the majority, I would not endeavor to compute the exact sentence credit that Obriecht is owed.� Given the murky nature of the record and the lack of briefing on the subject, any attempted computation is a gamble.� Because there is no need to conduct such a computation to answer the question at issue in this case, I would not risk creating precedent that could be used to diminish the weighty concerns underlying sentence credit.� Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
�67� I am authorized to state that Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON and Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS join this concurrence.
[1] State v. Obriecht, 2014 WI App 42, 353 Wis. 2d 542, 846 N.W.2d 479.
[2] The Honorable William E. Hanrahan of Dane County presiding.
[3] Obriecht and the State acknowledge that Obriecht has been released from incarceration.� However, we choose to decide the questions presented because they are capable of repetition, yet may evade review.� G.S., Jr. v. State, 118 Wis. 2d 803, 805, 348 N.W.2d 181 (1984).� The question of application of sentence credit to a revoked probationer may evade review because with reincarceration orders, the appellate process frequently cannot be completed such that the decision has a practical effect on the parties.� Id.�
[4] All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2011-12 version unless otherwise indicated.
[5] Obriecht, 353 Wis. 2d 542.
[6] TIS changed Wisconsin sentencing laws, breaking from the indeterminate form of sentencing and creating a bifurcated structure for imprisonment:� a term of prison confinement followed by a term of extended supervision.� Michael B. Brennan et al., Fully Implementing Truth-in-Sentencing, Wis. Law., Nov. 2002, at 11.� Obriecht committed the count one felony before TIS went into effect for felonies. �State v. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, �16, 281 Wis. 2d 484, 697 Wis. 2d 769 (stating Wis. Stat. � 973.01(1) was a main feature of TIS); � 973.01(1) (stating TIS for felonies went into effect on December 31, 1999).� Obriecht also committed the misdemeanors in counts two through seven before TIS went into effect for misdemeanors.� Id. (stating TIS for misdemeanors went into effect on February 1, 2003).�
[7] The 1998, 1999, and 2001 periods of custody refer to Obriecht's custody prior to his incarceration on April 21, 2001 at Dodge Correctional Institution.
[8] ����������������������������������� Days in
���� Period of Custody�������������� Custody
2/2/1998 to 10/16/1998����������� 257
6/30/1999 to 11/19/1999���������� 142
11/19/1999 to 12/20/1999��������� 32
3/21/01 to 4/21/01��������������� 31
����������������������� TOTAL���� 462
���������������������������� ��� Days of
Date of Credit Award�������� Credit Awarded
11/19/1999����������������������� 326
3/21/2001������������������������ 31
[9] When Obriecht was released on parole from the consecutive felony sentence, he had completed the misdemeanor sentences.
[10] The court did not issue a ruling, but rather noted on Obriecht's March 18, 2013 letter:� "DOC interpretation of law in correspondence of 3/18/13 is correct."� The notation is signed and dated April 3, 2013.
[11] Obriecht's counsel did not itemize the 107 day-tally for sentence credit, and we have not been able to determine how that number was calculated.
[12] See supra note 7.
[13] Mandatory release. . . .� [(7)](am) The reviewing authority may return a parolee released under sub. (1) or (1g)(b) or s. 304.02 or 304.06(1) to prison for a period up to the remainder of the sentence for a violation of the conditions of parole. �The remainder of the sentence is the entire sentence, less time served in custody prior to parole. �The revocation order shall provide the parolee with credit in accordance with ss. 304.072 and 973.155.
(b) A parolee returned to prison for violation of the conditions of parole shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time determined by the reviewing authority unless paroled earlier under par. (c). �The parolee is not subject to mandatory release under sub. (1) or presumptive mandatory release under sub. (1g). �The period of time determined under par. (am) may be extended in accordance with subs. (1q) and (2).
Wisconsin Stat. � 302.11(7).
[14] Any person on parole under this subsection may be returned to prison as provided in section 57.06(3) or 57.07(2) to serve the remainder of his sentence.� He may earn good time on the balance of such sentence while so in prison, subject to forfeiture thereof for misconduct as herein provided.� He may again be released on parole thereafter under either this section or section 57.06 or 57.07, whichever is applicable.� The remainder of his sentence shall be deemed to be the amount by which his original sentence was reduced by good time.�
Wisconsin Stat. � 53.11(7)(b) (1951).� In 1984, the legislature replaced earning "good time" with "entitlement to mandatory release."� See 1983 Wis. Act 528, � 9.
[15] A parolee returned to prison for violation of the conditions of parole shall be incarcerated for the entire period of time determined by the department under par. (a), unless paroled earlier under par. (c).� The parolee is not subject to mandatory release under sub. (1).� The period of time determined under par. (a) may be extended in accordance with sub. (2).
Wis. Stat. � 53.11(7)(b) (1984); 1983 Wis. Act 528, � 6.


We make your home improvement dreams become a reality!
We deliver superbly installed floor that top designers would envy – at a fraction of the cost. This includes hardwood, tile/stone, luxury vinyl tile (LVT) and carpeting.
Quality Flooring and Remodeling proudly offers complete kitchen, bathroom and basement remodeling services.
Quality Flooring and Remodeling has become a company its clients can trust to do the job right the first time and every time.
Cece and I want to thank you for another job superbly done. You exceeded our expectations by removing the old carpet from the 2nd floor of our home and replacing it with the beautiful new carpet all in one day. The wood floors on the 1st floor have been complimented for their beauty by many visitors to our home in the past six months. They are beautiful and the care you took to remove the furniture and place it back after the job was completed was much appreciated. Working with you and your team has been a real pleasure and I am certain that we will be doing more business in the future.
Copyright © 2018 Quality Floor and Remodeling Co. All rights reserved.


text:
Land of the Giants - The Complete Collection [DVD]
Format: Box set, PAL Language: English Subtitles: English Aspect Ratio: 4:3 - 1.33:1 Number of discs: 14 Classification: PG Studio: Revelation Films Ltd DVD Release Date: 5 Mar. 2012 Run...
Format: Box set, PAL
Aspect Ratio: 4:3 - 1.33:1
Classification: PG
Studio: Revelation Films Ltd
DVD Release Date: 5 Mar. 2012
From the unchallenged master of 1960s small screen sci-fi, Irwin Allen presents his boldest and most expensive show, Land of the Giants. Premiering in 1968, Giants has built up a devoted fan base over the past four decades, thanks to its heady mix of mind-blowing special effects, suspense and pure escapism. It s 1983 and sub-orbital spaceship the Spindrift is en route from Los Angeles to London. Mid-flight, the craft is drawn into a terrifying space storm, forcing it to crash on a hostile planet where little people are hunted down by giants.
Join Captain Steve Burton and his crew and passengers as they battle for their lives in this complete collection of Land of the Giants!
CONTAINS ALL 51 EPISODES PLUS A WEALTH OF SPECIAL FEATURES INCLUDING:
The Crash With Cast Commentary
Commentary Outtakes
Unaired Version Of The Pilot Episode (The Crash)
Presentation Reel
Special Effects Shots (No Audio)
Stills And Photo Galleries
Cast Interviews
MAD Magazine Parody
Original US Broadcast Information
Please Note:
These discs are (PAL) format, and will work on all modern Australian & European DVD players.


text:
+62 31 885 5588 marketing@sumberdjajaperkasa.com
Jl. Raya Pilang KM 8 No. 88 Kec. Wonoayu Sidoarjo 61273
Message From the President Director
PP Products
PE Products
WPC Products
Recycling & Compounding Services
www.duma.co.id
www.rooftop.co.id
www.luminate.co.id
www.formaxroof.co.id
www.royalroof.co.id
www.regisfloor.co.id
www.dumadeck.co.id
www.dumapanel.co.id
www.dumadoor.co.id
PT. SUMBER DJAJA PERKASA was established in 1965 in Northern Surabaya area, East Java, Indonesia, under the name of CV. SUMBER DJAJA. The business was pioneered by the Tanudjaja brothers (Mr. Paul & Mr. Roy Tanudjaja) with a very humble beginning. Back in those days, they only have one small storage area & several machines to produce PVC Hose and Plastic Rattan (for furniture and handicraft purposes). The limited sources & circumstances did not let them down for they have a huge dream to pursue, which is to be the leading plastic company with superior technology to create high quality innovative products.
It was not until the year of 1980 that the Tanudjaja brothers decided to invest their business in bigger land and bigger scale in the Berbek industrial area of Sidoarjo. Old machines were started to be replaced with newer, faster and updated one; new warehouses were built to hold more production and development capacities; and more human resources were multiplied and improved to be able to serve the increasing demands.
The Tanudjaja brothers then changed the name of the company to PT. Sumber Djaja Perkasa. They started to produce more diversified items, such as Drinking Straws, Strapping Bands, PP Rope, PVC Doors, Corrugated Roofing Sheets and wider range of PVC hose. Realizing that plastic is a very complex field with unlimited possibilities, we always think beyond what we already have and continue investing. Compounding machines were next in line, continued by the addition of a new factory plant in a 2.5 hectare land.
The success of the past cannot hold our primary ambitions. In early 2000, PT. SDP became the first company in Indonesia to adopt the Wood Plastic Composite (WPC) technology. WPC product line offers new solution for interior in modern and environmentally friendly building by combining wood dust/waste and fine plastic materials. The combination of both materials result in a low-cost hybrid material that produce products with natural wood-like appearances while retaining the practical benefits of plastic. Under the brand of DUMA®, we distribute our WPC products ranging from door, wall and ceiling panel, exterior wall cladding as well as decking to both Indonesian as well as international market. Domestic and international markets' responses have been remarkable.
In 2004, PT. SDP manufacturing plants were relocated to a new production center and corporate complex in Wonoayu, Sidoarjo. This 1.3 hectares (roughly 130,000 square meters) facility, which was five times larger than our previous combined, has been upgraded with state-of-the-art manufacturing and processing equipments. We strive to create more revolutionary products to support the needs of the ever-growing global market. Also in 2004, we first introduced the innovative Double-wall Corrugated uPVC roofing profile under the brand of Golden Swan®. In 2007, we change the brand name into Atap Dingin ROOFTOP®, that has since earned incredible recognition in Indonesia as well as several South East Asian countries. The product has successfully conveyed the unlimited possibilities of plastic material with unbeatable benefits and long product lifetime at an affordable price.
In 2012, after investing on Aluminum Composite Panel (ACP) / sandwich panel machine, PT. SDP became one of the first manufacturer of ACP product in Indonesia. Now, ACP has become one of the most widely used material for exterior as well as interior wall cladding for many projects in Indonesia. In 2013, in order to further convey our commitment for quality, we became an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system certified company. By achieving this certification, we believe that we would be able to significantly improve our process consistency that will result in improved product quality to meet requirement and to exceed their expectation. Our vision to become the most innovative plastic product manufacturing company continued in 2015 by introducing our new line of PE rope product under the brand of JAGO®. By investing several lines of machine, we are determined to become one of the main supplier for PE rope product in Indonesia as well as South East Asian market. On January 2017, our ISO 9001:2008 certification were updated and transitioned into the new ISO 9001:2015 certification. This new certification, certified by TUV Nord Indonesia, help us to further improve the efficiency of our production process as well as product quality.
Today, PT. SUMBER DJAJA PERKASA has became one of the main manufacturer of innovative plastic building materials as well as everyday plastic product in Indonesia. Our solid reputation and our valued customers' satisfaction have encouraged us to continue setting new standards for excellence in quality, dependability and commitment to both customers and employees.
Rooftop®
Formax® Roof
Royal® Roof
Regis® Vinyl Flooring
Luminate® Aluminium Composite Panel
Duma®
Golden Swan®
Copyright © 2020 PT. Sumber Djaja Perkasa. All Rights Reserved.