text:
I would like to thank the anonymous commenter who provide information and a link in the last post. The comment pertains to the rate of interest and references a May 11, 2017 appellate decision in Arizona State University Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System (ASU v. ASRS). The case in question has some interesting similarities and differences from Hall v. EORP that could influence the decision in Hall and Parker.
Like Hall and Parker, ASU v. EORP involves and overpayment of contributions, but the contributions in ASU v. EORP appear to be employer contributions for an unfunded actuarial liablity claimed by ASRS. ASRS demanded a payment of over $1 million from ASU with a penalty of 8% annual interest on any amount not paid within 90 days. ASU made the payment but sued ASRS over the claim and won. This reversed the debtor/creditor relationship, and ASRS had to refund the payment. As in Hall, the final sticking point was over how much interest to charge. The Superior Court judge order the judgment rate of "the lesser of ten percent per annum or at a rate per annum that is equal to one percent plus the prime rate as published by the board of governors of the federal reserve system," rather than the ten percent per annum rate on "any loan, indebtedness, or other obligation." The rate awarded at the time was 4.25%, less than half what would have been awarded on a loan, indebtedness, or other obligation.
ASU disputed this interest rate, in particular because it was based solely on a judgment. They prevailed in this argument and have been awarded the ten percent rate. The Appeals Court decision is only six pages long, but the gist of it is that ASRS treated the original demand for payment like an indebtedness, which included a punitive interest rate for any delay in remittance, that was required to pay an actuarial unfunded liability. If this was the case when ASRS was the creditor, it was equally applicable when ASRS became the debtor and had to pay the same money back to ASU. This certainly seems like a fair and reasonable rationale.
The question for us is would this be applicable in Hall and Parker? While there was no formal demand for payment from PSPRS to employees for the extra contributions, employees had no choice but to pay them, and the extra money was just taken from them whether they consented to it or not. Employees did not formally agree to give or loan money to PSPRS. The government used its power to extract it from their paychecks. As ASU did, employees paid it then went to court to challenge the additional amount. If we look at page 14 of PSPRS' 2016 Consolidated Actuarial Valuation, it describes the additional 4% paid (the excess contributions) in that fiscal year as a "portion used to pay down unfunded liability." So we see that PSPRS members unjustly had a part of their earnings taken (no threat of punitive interest was necessary as they had no choice in whether to make the additional contributions) to pay an unfunded PSPRS liability. Now like in ASU v. ASRS, we see the script flipped and the debtor and creditor switching places.
However, this is no slam dunk for an award of ten percent per annum interest. ASU v. ASRS was a dispute between two parties over a specific issue involving 17 individuals taking part in a termination program. In the judgment of ASRS, ASU was in arrears to ASRS. ASU disagreed and the court agreed with them. In regards to the Hall and Parker cases, EORP and PSPRS were making no demands on their respective employees and were simply following the requirements of SB 1609, for which the Arizona legislature was responsible. This major difference seems likely to reduce the chances that PSPRS members are awarded a ten percent per annum rate of pre-judgment interest.
This is all in the hands of Judge Thomason now. The latest information on the Hall case says that the matter is under advisement, meaning the judge is making his decision. Once again, I would like to thank the reader who referenced this case. It is often difficult to keep up with everything that is going on, and any help that can be provided is greatly appreciated.
Cheers, I'm glad you found it as interesting as I did. Your blog has become the main source of information for the masses, and we appreciate you.
I am hoping someone has information on members of PSPRS who were hired after June of 2011 and prior to January 2012, when the tier 2 started, are not eligible for the refund. I contacted my employer and PSPRS, and no one seems to know exactly why. Any information would be great.
You wouldn't be eligible for the refund because of the law change and you were hired under the knowledge that you would pay the hire rates. The law was passed but not implemented until later.
It's not really a refund when the government keeps the money and makes money off it. Then, it returns it devalued in the face of inflation, and the credit used in the interim. I guess it could be worse, Greece/Russia.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual - Link Download Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual ,Read File Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual pdf live , Where I can Download Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Pdf , MOBI file of Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual , Free. laurene_fausett_-_fundamentals_of_neural_networks fundamentals of neural networks by laurene fausett Download book and solution manual free DOWNLOAD. مرسلة بواسطة faizan في sir i want solution manual of fundamentals of neural network by laurene v.fausett. Reply Delete. Replies.. fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett solution PDF may not make exciting reading, but fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett solution is packed with valuable instructions, information and warnings..
download laurene fausett fundamentals of neural networks solution manual Page 1 The cross and lynching tree james h cone - Artists vision poets passion the paintings of fu baoshi - Phoenix. Laurene Fausett solution Manual transformsiberia books in pdf and different codecs are very handy to learn obtain Laurene Fausett solution Manual pdf into your digital pill and browse it any place you pass Laurene Fausett basics neural networks solution [full ] Laurene Fausett basics of neural networks solution Manual husqvarna Manual chainsaw. Free Download Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Book PDF Keywords Free DownloadLaurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Book PDF, read, reading book, free, download, book, ebook, books, ebooks, manual.
Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Pdf. Vs Commodore Workshop Manual Free Download Index To Current Military Literature Triumph Legent Tt Trident 900 Bike Workshop Repair Manual Laurene Fausett Solution Manual -. csbdu.in. Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms And Applications [Laurene V. Fausett] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Providing detailed examples of simple applications, this new book introduces the use of neural networks. It covers simple neural nets for pattern classification; pattern association; neural networks based on competition; adaptive-resonance.
Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution Manual Pdf.zip. Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution Manual Pdf.zip. Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual timberwolf 250 service manual download fundamentals of neural networks ir c2880 user solution manual for fundamentals of neural shineray 250 manual laurene fausett - fundamentals of neural nissan manual keyword ranking analysis for laurene fausett poe fundamentals- of-neural- networks-laurene. Download solution manual for fundamentals of neural networks by Laurene fausett filesonic & fileserve,megaupload, hotfile, mediafire. solution manual for Solution manual of neural networks a Neural Networks A Comprehensive Foundation Simon solution manual of neural networks a comprehensive foundation.zip laurene fausett fundamentals of neural.
laurene fausett fundamentals of neural networks solution manual pdf fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett solution manual Viral - The Film 5. Dec 09, 1993 · Fundamentals of Neural Networks has 58 ratings and 3 reviews. Providing detailed examples of simple applications, this new book introduces the use of neu. Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms And Applications Laurene V. Fausett, An exceptionally clear, thorough introduction to neural networks written at an elementary level. Written with the beginning student in mind, the text features systematic discussions of all major neural networks and fortifies the reader's.
Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution.pdf - search pdf books free download Free eBook and manual for Business, Education,Finance, Inspirational, Novel, Religion, Social, Sports, Science, Technology, Holiday, Medical,Daily new PDF ebooks documents ready for download, All PDF documents are Free,The biggest database for Free books and documents search with fast results. fundamentals-of-neural-networks-laurene-fausett 3,498 views. Share; Like; Download fundamentals-of-neural-networks-laurene-fausett 1. For many applications, the formulation of the problem for solution by a neural network (and choice of an appropriate network) requires the detailed understanding of the networks that cornes from. Mar 26, 2014 · Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution Manual Pdf.zip tinyurl.com/mgvgxep.
Fundamentals of Neural Networks Soft Computing www.myreaders.info Return to Website Neural network, topics : Introduction, biological neuron model, artificial neuron model, neuron equation. Artificial neuron : basic algorithmic solution or where we. Free Download Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution Book PDF Keywords Free DownloadFundamentals Of Neural Networks Laurene Fausett Solution Book PDF, read, reading book, free, download, book, ebook, books, ebooks, manual. Laurene V. Fausett is the author of Fundamentals of Neural Networks (3.97 avg rating, 58 ratings, 3 reviews, published 1993), Applied Numerical Analysis.
Fundamentals Of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett.pdf. Fundamentals Of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett.pdf. Sign In. Details. Main menu. Displaying Fundamentals Of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett.pdf.. Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Keywords: Link Download Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual ,Read File Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual pdf live , Where I can Download Laurene Fausett Fundamentals Of Neural Networks Solution Manual Pdf , MOBI file of. Laurene Fausett Solution Manual If you are looking for a book Laurene fausett solution manual in pdf format, in that case you come on to the faithful website. We present the utter edition of this book in PDF, doc, ePub, DjVu, txt forms. christ manual fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett engine volvo d7c manual solution manual of.
Introduction to Neural Networks CS 5870 Jugal Kalita University of Colorado Colorado Springs Priddy and Keller 2005 for applications) Textbooks • Main text: Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications, Laurene Fausett, Prentice-Hall, 1994 • Finding solutions to constrained optimization problems .. AbeBooks.com: Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms And Applications (9780133341867) by Laurene V. Fausett and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices.. Solution Manual to Ariti cial Neural Networks (B. Yegnanarayana, Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1999) B. Yegnanarayana and S. Ramesh Solution to problem 3: By applying the operations of an M-P neuron, the output of the network shown in Fig.P1.2 for the input T is s = 0..
Laurene/fausett/laurene_fausett_fundamentals_of_neural_networks_solution_manual ebooks and guide 2006 Chevy Cobalt Service Manual. This is 2006 Chevy Cobalt Service. Solutions Manual by Laurene Fausett, 9780130610829, available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide.. Fundamentals of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett; Post on 09-Apr-2015. 1.556 views. Category: Documents. 37 download. Report. similar examples are used wherever it is appropriate. Fundamentals of Neural Networks has been written for students and for researchers in academia, industry, and govemment who are interested in using neural.
Find Laurene v Fausett solutions at Chegg.com now. Skip Navigation. home / study / authors / laurene v fausett. Laurene v Fausett Solutions. Below are Chegg supported textbooks by Laurene v Fausett. Select a textbook to see worked-out Solutions. 0 Problems solved: Laurene v Fausett: Fundamentals of Neural Networks 1st Edition 0 Problems. Korg radias service manual - Atlas fur himmels beobachter - Quran english muhammad farooq i azam malik - Solution focused therapy assumptions - Daily rituals how artists work mason currey - Widdershins whyborne griffin book 1 - Laurene fausett fundamentals of neural networks solution manual - Atls triage scenarios. Fundamentals of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett - Ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online. Fundamentals of Neural Networks by Laurene Fausett. pour plus tard. enregistrer. Liés. Informations. Intégrer. Fundamentals of Neural Networks has been written for students and for.
Computer Science / Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems / close. Sign in to the Instructor Resource Centre. User name: Password: Cancel › Forgot username / password? › Redeem an access code › Request access. .. Fundamentals of Neural Networks by Laurene V. Fausett, 9780133341867, available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide.. Contents xiii PREFACE xv, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Why Neural Networks, and Why Now? 1.2 What Is a Neural Net? 3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.3 Artificial Neural Networks, 3.
laurene fausett fundamentals of neural networks solution manual Path: /laurene-fausett-fundamentals-of-neural-networks-solution-manual.pdf essentials of investments, 8th edition, zvi bodie, Essentials of Investments, 8th Edition, Zvi Bodie, Solutions Manual .PDF download. 2E Laurene v.. fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett solution manual fundamentals of neural networks laurene fausett solution fundamentals of neural networks pdftypes of artificial neural networks -. Fundamentals of Neural Networks : Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications by Laurene V. Fausett (1993, Paperback) 1 product rating 2.0 average based on 1 product rating.
solution manual of neural networks a - Neural Networks A Comprehensive Foundation Simon solution manual of neural networks a comprehensive foundation.zip laurene fausett. Sign in to the Instructor Resource Centre. User name: Password: Cancel. Fundamentals Of Neural Networks 01 Edition 1 Edition by Laurene Fausett from Flipkart.com. Only Genuine Products. 30 Day Replacement Guarantee. Instructor's Manual for Fundamentals of Neural Networks, Sample Solutions and Software, Applied Numerical Analysis using Matlab, and Numerical Analysis with Applications and Algorithms..
Fundamentals of Artiﬁcial Neural Networks May 22, 2009 1 / 61. Fakhri Karray. University of Waterloo. Accepted set by karray. Introduction Features Fundamentals Madaline Case Study: Binary Classiﬁcation Us ing Perceptron. Introduction. Artiﬁcial Neural Networks. Fundamentals of neural networks: architectures, algorithms, and applications. Editor: View colleagues of Laurene Fausett REFERENCES. A. V. Anisimov , E. V. Porkhun , V. Yu. Taranukha, Algorithm for construction of parametric vectors for solution of classification problems by a feed-forward neural network, Cybernetics and Systems.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
who receives data about your rights regarding data processing by us.
The transmission of information to or from this website is secured with TLS encryption.
You can access, print or download this privacy notice permanently and at any time here via the functions of your browser.
You can contact our data protection officer at bartels@comtection.de.
The provision of this website requires the processing of various information. In addition, the scope of data processing depends on your use of the functionalities of this website, for instance if you communicate with us or consent to the processing of data.
As a visitor to our websites, you are not subject to any automated decision-making according to Article 22 GDPR.
The following legal bases apply to the processing of personal data on this website.
The data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes.
We delete personal data as soon as the legal basis for its processing expires. If there are several legal bases for a situation, the deletion occurs with the expiration of the last legal basis, for instance, after fulfillment of all legal storage obligations.
In order to display the website, it is necessary to process certain information. This commences with your visit on our website. In addition, we offer functionalities on our website which require further data processing. The storage of this data including your IP address serves our legitimate interest in providing our website. The data will be deleted as soon as you leave our site.
Our website uses the Adobe Typekit tool from Adobe Systems Incorporated, 345 Park Avenue San Jose, CA 95110-2704, US. When you visit our website, the fonts are cached by your browser. To do this, a connection is established to Adobe’s server, which allows Adobe to collect certain information about you, including your IP address and information about your browser. The legal basis of the processing is our legitimate interest in an attractive design of our website.
We would like to further improve the usability of this website and the attractiveness of our services. For this reason, when you visit our website, we also collect data on usage behavior, which we evaluate for this purpose. For this reason, the following tracking and analysis cookies are also used on our website in addition to the technically conditional cookies shown above.
You can object to the storage and analysis of your website usage data at any time by setting an opt-out cookie in your browser by clicking the button below. Matomo will then no longer collect any data about you. This cookie must be set for each browser used. If you delete stored cookies in the future, the opt-out cookie also expires.
The legal basis of data processing for analysis purposes is our legitimate interest in a statistical evaluation of your user behaviour in order to be able to continuously optimize and better market our website and our services.
Data processing for usage analysis takes place during your visit to our website and only up to the time of your effective objection.
If the data processing is based on your consent or our legitimate interest, you have the right to object to the processing or to withdraw your consent at any time. Your objection or withdrawal only has an effect for the future. Where the analysis cookies used offer their own technical options for deactivation, this explained above. You may contact hello@hirschen-group.com at any time to exercise your right of objection or revocation. If you object to processing on the basis of our legitimate interest, we may nevertheless continue processing if we can prove compelling reasons worthy of protection which outweigh your interests, rights and freedoms.
If your personal data is processed, you are a data subject within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 1 GDPR. As data subject, you have the following rights with regard to your personal data. To exercise these rights, please contact us using the contact details above.
You have a right of access concerning your personal data processed by us. This includes the mandatory information set out in Art. 15 GDPR.
You have the right to request the immediate correction of inaccurate personal data and the completion of incomplete personal data.
You have the right to request the erasure of your personal data if one of the grounds mentioned in Art. 17 GDPR applies, in particular if there is no longer a legal basis for the processing.
You have the right to request the restriction of the processing of your personal data if one of the grounds mentioned in Art. 18 GDPR applies, in particular at your request instead of deleting the data.
You have the right to request all personal data stored by us about you in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format or to transmit this data to another controller without obstruction by the controller to whom the personal data was made available.
According to Art. 77 GDPR, you have the right to file a complaint with the supervisory authority responsible for you.
Some of the processing of your personal data within the framework of the website is also carried out by processors, in particular the hosting of the website and the use of analysis tools. These are included exclusively on the basis of an agreement about the commissioned data processing in accordance with Art. 28 para. 3 GDPR.
The personal data we collect from you through this website will not be transferred to third countries outside the European Economic Area.
When using Matomo, your IP address is transmitted to InnoCraft Ldt. in abbreviated form. InnoCraft Ltd. is based in New Zealand and thus in a third country in accordance with Art. 44 GDPR. New Zealand is subject to an adequacy decision by the EU Commission pursuant to Art. 45 GDPR.

matches:
Art. 4
Art. 15
Art. 17
Art. 18
Art. 77
Art. 28
Art. 44
Art. 45


Can a Potential Infringer Use an IPR to Gain Access to Article III Courts?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments in a case that will clarify an important aspect of the inter partes review (IPR) process: who has standing to appeal an adverse decision? On December 5, Momenta and Bristol-Myers Squibb sparred and parried with a judicial panel consisting of Judges Newman, Dyk, and Chen. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (No. 17-1694).
Momenta used the IPR procedure to challenge Bristol-Myers Squibb’s patent covering a formulation of ORIENCIA® (abatacept) for treating rheumatoid arthritis. Momenta failed to persuade the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s claims were obvious. Momenta appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. 319 (“A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) may appeal the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. Any party to the inter partes review shall have the right to be a party to the appeal.”). Despite the broad language of §319 (“a party dissatisfied” and “any party to the IPR”), Momenta’s appeal may not be considered on the merits due to a possible lack of Article III standing.
Ordinarily, a party does not have standing to challenge a U.S. patent in an Article III court unless the party is sued for infringement or is threatened with such a suit. Momenta does not have standing based on infringement or threatened litigation. Rather, it is trying to obtain standing to challenge validity in an Article III court by appealing from an IPR.
In its Federal Circuit appeal, Momenta asserts that it suffers individualized, concrete harm sufficient to establish Article III injury in fact. It bases its position on costs incurred in developing its current drug candidate, costs it would incur should it need to alter its business plan to use a non-infringing alternative, as well as on the estoppel provision (35 U.S.C. 315(e)) for IPRs. Momenta urges that prior appeals from administrative agency rulings found injury when an economic harm was reasonably probable or highly likely. It also cites cases where business competitors are presumed to be harmed if their competitors are benefited.
Momenta’s legal arguments rely on analogizing its situation to that of parties in cases involving other administrative agencies. It distinguishes its facts from the two cases in which appeals from decisions of the PTAB were dismissed for lack of standing. In particular, Momenta distinguishes over Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (involving a public interest group) and Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (involving a non-practicing, licensing entity).
Consumer Watchdog arose out of a failed invalidation attempt using an inter partes reexamination. Like the IPR statute, the reexamination statute allowed a third party requester to appeal decisions. Nonetheless, the court found that Consumer Watchdog lacked a particularized, concrete stake in the outcome of the appeal. The court also found that the estoppel provision did not constitute injury in fact, as that injury was only conjectural or hypothetical. Phigenix arose out of an IPR. Phigenix was not a manufacturer but a developer of an intellectual property portfolio. It argued that the PTAB’s failure to invalidate the patent-in-suit would increase its competition for licensing its own properties, constituting an actual economic injury. The court held that Phigenix was not engaged in any activity that would give rise to a possible infringement suit, so the estoppel provision does not cause harm. Momenta argues that these two cases are distinct from its case, because the IPR petitioners in those cases failed to provide evidence of particularized harm.
Bristol-Myers Squibb asserts that Momenta, like Consumer Watchdog and Phigenix, has not suffered a concrete and particularized injury from the PTAB’s decision not to revoke the Bristol-Myers Squibb patent. Momenta has no product on the market, no product approved for the market by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and no product that has passed the three phases of clinical testing. Momenta is merely requesting an advisory opinion, Bristol-Myers Squibb asserts.
Bristol-Myers Squibb notes that the PTAB decision did not deny Momenta anything to which it was entitled. The patent belongs to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Momenta is not particularly affected by the PTAB’s decision. Neither Momenta’s expenditures for research and development nor potential estoppel against Momenta using the same arguments or other available arguments in later proceedings convert the decision of the PTAB into a present harm, Bristol-Myers Squibb urges. Bristol-Myers Squibb argues that Article III standing will first arise only when Momenta (a third party) has filed a biosimilar application under the Biological Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Like Bristol-Myers Squibb, Momenta points to the Biological Price Competition and Innovation Act as providing a means for pre-market patent challenge. But Momenta urges that the remedy provided by that act is not an exclusive remedy.
The judges in the oral arguments appeared to signal their positions. At a few junctures, one judge answered the question of a second judge. Each judge seemed to have one aspect of the case that weighed heavily. Judge Chen repeatedly noted that Momenta’s commercial product was not certain at this point. The current proposed product might fail clinical tests, Momenta might redesign the product to be non-infringing (as hinted in a public statement by the company), and the FDA might not approve the product for market. If the court found that Momenta had standing, the court’s opinion on patentability might be nothing more than an advisory opinion. Judge Dyk indicated that Momenta might have no opportunity to challenge the patentability of the Bristol-Myers Squibb patent prior to making substantial expenditures, if standing to appeal were not found. Judge Newman noted that Momenta’s current drug development and clinical testing are protected by the safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), so that Momenta was not currently infringing.
The parties, while recognizing that 35 U.S.C. 319 was not sufficient to provide standing to Momenta, disagreed on the standard that should be applied. Should Momenta’s involvement in an administrative process with an adverse outcome, coupled with plans to develop an infringing product, be sufficient to achieve standing? Or must Momenta wait until it meets the requirements for a declaratory judgment plaintiff to challenge the validity in an Article III court? The issue in this case could, of course, be moot if the Supreme Court’s decides that IPRs are unconstitutional in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Green’s Energy Group, LLC (No. 16-712).
Click here to listen to the arguments in Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Previous PostDarrell G. Mottley presents on design patents at DRI IP Litigation Seminar in DenverNext PostIP Alert: Step One and Done to Patent Eligibility: Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.


text:
Beth S. Herr for the defendant.
Elizabeth R. Dunphy, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
The principal question argued on this appeal by Stevenson from his conviction of murder in the second degree is whether in violation of Mass.R.Crim.P. 36, 378 Mass. 909 (1979), Stevenson was denied a speedy trial. Stevenson was arraigned on an indictment for murder on December 11, 1981. He was placed on trial on March 27, 1984. The period (arraignment to trial) was 837 days. The prosecutor and the attorney then appearing for Stevenson, in response to a request by the panel hearing the arguments, have submitted a written statement of their respective positions on each allegedly "excluded period" of days under rule 36. Certain details of the procedure in this case are stated in the appendix to this rescript.
1. The parties agree (a) that the days needed for a mental examination of Stevenson (January 26 - March 15, 1982, forty-nine days, erroneously computed by the parties as forty-two days) are to be excluded; (b) that ten days (October 25 - November 3, 1982) are to be excluded for a continuance at Stevenson's request; (c) that four days (January 27-30, 1984) are to be excluded because of the appointment of new defense counsel; and (d) that eight days for a further mental examination of Stevenson (March 15-22, 1984) are excluded. The aggregate of these exclusions is seventy-one days.
2. A Superior Court judge on December 16, 1982, (a) granted Stevenson's motion (dated November 3, and amended on December 6, 1982) to suppress certain statements by Stevenson and (b) "continued [the case] in order for [the] Commonwealth to proceed with [an] interlocutory appeal." The appeal was not decided by the Supreme Judicial Court until December 23, 1983. See Appendix. Stevenson's counsel thus knew on December 16, 1982, that the Commonwealth claimed an interlocutory appeal. The record shows no basis for assuming that the Commonwealth consumed any unnecessary time in obtaining the transcripts necessary to prepare and present that appeal. Accordingly, we treat as a period not to be counted under rule 36(b)(2), excluding "(iv) delay resulting from interlocutory appeals" the whole time, December 16, 1982, to December 23, 1983, a period of 373 days. See Reporters' Notes to Mass.R.Crim.P. 36(b)(2)(A)(iv), Mass. Ann. Laws, Rules of Criminal Procedure at 529 (1979). See also United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 315-317 (1986), where the majority opinion, applying Federal "speedy trial" principles somewhat different from rule 36 provisions (see Barry v. Commonwealth, 390 Mass. 285 , 290 n.9 ), held that, on balance, the delay incident to that interlocutory appeal should be treated as excluded from consideration. See as to government interlocutory appeals with respect to serious crimes, Wisdom, J., in United States v. Herman, 576 F.2d 1139, 1146-1147 (5th Cir. 1978, where the crime, as here, was murder).
3. The time consumed by several continuances, not objected to in behalf of Stevenson, is excluded from the computation under rule 36. In Commonwealth v. McCants, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 294 , 297-301 (1985), it was said (at 299) essentially that continuances "acceded to by [defense] counsel" may reasonably be treated as excluded from the rule 36 computation even if the defendant has not "explicitly consented to the delay or instructed [his] attorney to obtain it." See the Barry case, 390 Mass. at 298. We rely on the docket entries to show the circumstances (see the Barry case at 289-290), and treat continuances, not shown by the docket entries (or later corrections of them) to have been objected to by Stevenson, as properly excluded from the rule 36 computation. See Commonwealth v. Farris, 390 Mass. 300 , 305-306 (1983); Commonwealth v. Domingue, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 987 , 988-989 (1984), which held that there was no necessity for the trial judge to make the statement of reasons called for by rule 36(b)(2)(f) where there was no defense objection to a continuance.
We hold that (1) the period January 30, 1984, to March 15, 1984 (46 days); and (2) the period April 13, 1982, to June 16, 1982 (65 days), are to be excluded. These two continuances, each allowed by a Superior Court judge then presiding, amount to 111 days. As new counsel was appointed for Stevenson on January 30, 1984, the former excluded period, not objected to, may be viewed in some degree as probably accruing to his benefit to permit new counsel to prepare his defense.
4. The aggregate excluded periods are: part 1 above, 71 days; part 2 above, 373 days; and part 3 above, 111 days, or a total exclusion of 555 days. Deducting this total from the 837 days (arraignment to trial) leaves 282 days, which is less than the 365 days allowed by rule 36. We need not consider any other periods which the Commonwealth argues also should be excluded.
5. Nothing in the decisions already cited or in the following cases requires holding that periods correctly excluded under rule 36 must be taken into account, nevertheless, in determining whether there has been a violation of either the Federal or State constitutional provisions concerning a speedy trial. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521, 534 (1972); Commonwealth v. McDonald, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 368 , 374 (1986). There (as here) there was "no showing that the government had contrived or contributed to the delay." Compare Commonwealth v. Lutoff, 14 Mass. App. Ct. 434 -446 (1982, where actual prejudice from delay was held to justify dismissal). It does not appear, nor is it argued in Stevenson's brief, that his ability to defend against the murder charge was prejudiced by delay.
Stevenson was never able to obtain release on bail during his pretrial confinement, although the docket shows he made two motions (May 9, 1983, and December 15, 1983) for release on his personal recognizance. The record contains no statement of the reasons for the denial of each of these motions. The docket does not show that either of his counsel ever pressed to a hearing a motion filed (June 8, 1983, while the interlocutory appeal was still under consideration by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court) "to dismiss for lack of [a] speedy trial." Balancing all the considerations (including, e.g., the seriousness of the alleged offense and the absence of a showing of any loss of evidence by delay), we conclude that dismissal of the indictment was not required. See and compare Commonwealth v. Beckett, 373 Mass. 329 , 334-335 (1977, where, however, there was no pretrial confinement). Compare Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 26-28 (1973).
APPENDIX CONCERNING DETAILS OF PROCEDURE.
(1) The parties agree that dates when Stevenson was in custody prior to arraignment, including December 11, 1981, are to be excluded under rule 36. They are not included in the 837 days (arraignment to trial) computed above. It should be noted that, under rule 36 (entitled "Case Management"), par. (b)(3), "[c]omputation of an excluded period shall include both the first and the last day of the excludable act or event."
dated January 10, 1983, continuing the case for trial to February 24, 1983) that "S.J.C. needs transcript of [m]otion testimony before hearing interlocutory appeal." The formal interlocutory appeal was received in the clerk's office of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County on March 28, 1983. The Commonwealth filed an eleven page memorandum of law received by the clerk on April 22. In behalf of Stevenson, a forty-three page memorandum of law was filed on June 13, 1983. That memorandum refers to four separate volumes of testimony before the Superior Court motion judge which obviously had to be transcribed before the interlocutory appeal could be heard. The matter was argued before the Supreme Judicial Court single justice on May 19. Then leave to appeal was granted and the case was retained in that court for decision. The single justice's decision sustained the motion judge's suppression of Stevenson's statements and referred (among other matters) to evidence that Stevenson "was mentally retarded and had an I.Q. of 66."

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.