Julio ALVAREZ, Petitioner–Appellee, v. Robert ERCOLE, Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, and Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondents–Appellants.
Before JACOBS, CALABRESI, and LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. William Carney, The Legal Aid Society, New York, N.Y., for Petitioner–Appellee. Cynthia A. Carlson (Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Mary Jo L. Blanchard, on the brief), Assistant District Attorneys, for Robert T. Johnson, Bronx County District Attorney, Bronx, N.Y., for Respondents–Appellants.
Petitioner–Appellee Julio Alvarez was sentenced in 2004 to 45 years' imprisonment for shooting and killing Daniel Colon and wounding two others. At trial, Alvarez's defense strategy was to show that the New York City Police Department investigation had been incomplete in ways that created reasonable doubt that the government had proved its case against him. In support of this argument, Alvarez sought to cross-examine the lead detective to show that the police had not investigated leads provided by a witness, Edwin Vasquez, whose tips were memorialized in a detective's notes and an investigative DD5 report. The trial court prohibited Alvarez from pursuing this line of questioning, ruling that it would lead to the introduction of impermissible hearsay. But Alvarez sought to cross-examine the detective about the Vasquez report in order to show that the police had not pursued known leads, and not to show that the content of the Vasquez report was true. Hence, the trial court's ruling was error. Moreover, by further cutting off this line of questioning through an alternate “clear link” ruling, the trial court effectively denied Alvarez the opportunity to develop his only defense. Taken together, the trial court's evidentiary rulings unreasonably applied clearly established Sixth Amendment law and drastically impaired Alvarez's ability to present that defense.
We therefore affirm the judgment of the District Judge (McMahon, J.) granting Alvarez's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Around 2:30 p.m. on Saturday, April 6, 2002, Margie Rodriguez heard gunshots from the street below her Hunts Point, Bronx apartment and called 911. From her sixth floor window, Rodriguez saw two men drive off in a gray car with a distinctive sunroof. Daniel “Dapper Dan” Colon, a local drug dealer, had been shot twice and lay dying in the street.
Moments earlier, Dan Colon had met with two teen-aged crack dealers: 15 year-old Manny Colon (no relation to Dan) and 19 year-old Aramis Fournier.1 Dan, Manny, and Fournier had discussed a recent police raid on their stash house at 735 Bryant Avenue. As Dan, Manny, and Fournier walked down Bryant Avenue, a car pulled up; one of its two occupants hopped out, said, “What's up now, Dap?” and then opened fire. Despite gunshot wounds to his leg, Manny fled on foot while Fournier, who was also hit, played dead. Both of the teenagers survived. Dan, however, died en route to the hospital.
NYPD officers questioned Manny and Fournier within hours of the shooting, but neither identified the shooter or the driver. Fournier said that the car was “possibly a Toyota,” and Manny described it as “a small gold or silver car.” That same day, NYPD Detective Donnelly interviewed Ariel Roche, a car mechanic working on Bryant Avenue. Donnelly jotted notes during the interview, which he turned into a DD5 investigation report. According to Donnelly's notes and the DD5, Roche told Donnelly that, at the sound of gunfire, he had run to the shop's door, facing onto Bryant Avenue. Roche saw an Hispanic male in his twenties get into the back of a four-door gold or gray Maxima or Altima type vehicle. Roche said the man was carrying a gun. Donnelly's notes include Roche's description of watching the gold or gray car back down Bryant Avenue (a one-way street), make a turn, and then head northwest on Hunts Point Avenue. The car, Roche said, had New York plates.
On April 9, 2002—three days after the shooting—Detective Alfred showed Fournier a photo array that included Respondent–Appellee Julio Alvarez's image. Fournier did not identify anyone. On April 10, Alfred showed Manny a photo spread, again including Alvarez's photo, whom Manny identified as the shooter. On April 12, almost a week after the shooting, Alfred again showed Fournier a photo spread including Alvarez's picture. Fournier said that Alvarez looked like the shooter but he was not sure, and failed to definitively identify anyone. Learning that the police were looking for him, Alvarez turned himself in and was arrested on April 15, 2002. Detective Alfred told Fournier and Manny, “We got the guy,” and asked them to view an in-person lineup, which included Alvarez. Both shooting victims identified Alvarez.2 Police searched Alvarez's car pursuant to a warrant and found a box of 9 millimeter bullets in the trunk. The NYPD Firearms Analysis Unit could not link these bullets to any gun used in the shooting.
Over a year before trial, the Bronx district attorney gave Alvarez redacted copies of the DD5 reports and notes from Roche's and Vasquez's interviews. The redacted versions blacked out Roche's name and both witnesses' birthdates and contact information. Vasquez's report included his unredacted, full name in one location as well as the phone number that Vasquez attributed to “Julio.” The police apparently never called Julio's number, nor did they use the directions to locate Julio's home. Soon after receiving the Vasquez DD5 report, defense counsel used the number Vasquez attributed to “Julio” to identify “Julio Guerrero,” who lived near the shooting on Bryant Avenue, was married to a woman named “Bianchi,” and drove a silver Acura. The state court had a bench warrant out for Guerrero's arrest on a minor traffic offense, but Guerrero was never apprehended, and defense counsel could not locate him.
Defense counsel also sent a private investigator to Roche's garage address. But the investigator, not knowing Roche's name, hit a wall when each of the employees denied having talked to the police. Despite Alvarez's continued request for the redacted contact information for Vasquez and Roche, the Bronx district attorney refused to disclose it until after jury selection for Alvarez's trial. By that time, Vasquez had moved and changed his phone number, and Roche had relocated to Puerto Rico.
Alvarez proceeded to a jury trial before Bronx County Supreme Court Judge Edward Davidowitz. To testify to the police investigation into Dan's homicide, the state called lead Detective Alfred (Detective Monaco had retired, and the state did not call him .) When defense counsel asked Alfred to explain the investigating officers' reaction to the leads generated by Vasquez (and included in the DD5 report), the government objected that the question called for impermissible hearsay. Defense counsel argued that two avenues permitted the questioning: (1) as a remedy for the state's Brady violation (in not disclosing the witness's contact information until trial); and (2) as non-hearsay evidence of the shoddy police investigation, by showing that the police had not tried to track down Vasquez's “Julio.” Judge Davidowitz rejected Alvarez's Brady claim and agreed with the district attorney that the cross-examination called for impermissible hearsay. The state court explained, “the ultimate conclusion that [defense counsel] want[s] the jury to reach is that had [Detective Alfred] pursued this investigation further, it would have resulted in an arrest of someone else, and that ․ is bringing out hearsay.” Plus, the state court ruled, such questioning was barred by a state evidentiary rule requiring a “clear link” between evidence implicating a culpable third party and the defendant's charged crime. See People v. Primo, 96 N.Y.2d 351, 356 (2001). As it happens, the case cited by the state judge eliminated any heightened “clear link” evidentiary standard, choosing instead the “general balancing analysis that governs the admissibility of all evidence.” See id.
Similarly, the state court prevented Alvarez from cross-examining Alfred about Roche's DD5. Judge Davidowitz again rejected Alvarez's argument that the Roche report should be admitted to remedy the state's alleged Brady violation. The state court denied any Brady violation had occurred. Moreover, Judge Davidowitz doubted the ultimate value of Roche's DD5. As the Appellate Division observed, Roche's description of the shooter's car was “somewhat equivocal and self-contradictory” and cumulative of Margie Rodriguez's testimony.3 People v. Alvarez, 845 N.Y.S.2d 230, 231 (1st Dep't 2007).
The jury acquitted Alvarez of murder but convicted him of manslaughter and two counts of assault. Judge Davidowitz sentenced Alvarez to 45 years' imprisonment: a 25–year term for manslaughter and two 10–year terms for his assault convictions, each to run consecutively.
The Appellate Division affirmed Alvarez's conviction, People v. Alvarez, 845 N.Y.S.2d at 232, and Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals denied Alvarez's request for leave to appeal, People v. Alvarez, 9 N.Y.3d 1030 (2008). Alvarez then filed a habeas petition in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that (1) the government's delayed disclosure of information for Roche and Vasquez violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); (2) that the trial court violated Alvarez's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right when it barred all cross-examination of Detective Alfred on the Roche and Vasquez DD5 reports; and (3) the trial court's instruction on “transferred intent” violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
District Judge McMahon granted Alvarez's habeas petition, holding that the trial court's decision to bar all questioning of Detective Alfred regarding the Vasquez DD5 was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Confrontation Clause, and that this error prevented Alvarez from receiving a fair trial. The District Court rejected Alvarez's remaining arguments (including his Brady claim and his alleged Confrontation Clause violation based on the Roche DD5) because they did not meet the high threshold of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).
The government appealed; Alvarez did not cross-appeal. Accordingly, neither the Brady nor the Roche confrontation issues are before us. We agree with the District Court that the trial court's decision to prohibit Alvarez from questioning Detective Alfred about the Vasquez DD5 was neither a “reasonable limit[ ] on ․ cross-examination[ ]” nor “harmless” error. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679–80 (1986). We, therefore, affirm the District Court.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). An “unreasonable application” occurs when “the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000). We assess “unreasonableness” objectively. See Brinson v. Walker, 547 F.3d 387, 392 (2d Cir.2008). “[A]n unreasonable application of [Supreme Court law] must be objectively unreasonable, [and] not merely wrong.” White v. Woodall, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Yet, the trial court's decision need not teeter on “judicial incompetence” to warrant relief under § 2254(d). Francis S. v. Stone, 221 F.3d 100,111 (2d Cir.2000).
Supreme Court law clearly establishes that, under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, a criminal defendant must have “a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him.” Brinson, 547 F.3d at 392 (citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51 (1987)). See also Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974) (holding that this confrontation right is applicable to state and federal defendants alike) (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)). The Confrontation Clause does not, however, guarantee unfettered cross-examination. See Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985) (per curiam). The trial court has “broad discretion ․ ‘to impose reasonable limits on ․ cross examination based on concerns about ․ harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, ․ or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.’ “ Brinson, 547 F.3d at 394 (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679).
“Combining the standard for restricting cross-examination with the AEDPA standard, in order to grant [a] habeas petition we would have to conclude not only that the trial court abused its ‘broad discretion’ by precluding cross-examination ․ but also that the [state appellate court] could not reasonably have determined that the [evidence] would have been excludable had the trial court properly applied ‘standard rules of evidence’․” Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 510 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Wade v. Mantello, 333 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir.2003)). “On habeas corpus, ․ we do not sit to review the trial judge's exercise of discretion, but rather to assess whether the state court's denial of [the defendant's] Confrontation Clause claim was reasonable.” Id. at 511. Moreover, for habeas to be warranted, the trial court's denial must not have been harmless, that is, it must have had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.” Brinson, 547 F.3d at 395 (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We “start with the propriety of the trial court's evidentiary ruling.” Hawkins, 460 F.3d at 244 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Bronx County Supreme Court prohibited Alvarez from cross-examining Detective Alfred about the Vasquez DD5 report on the ground that the questions solicited inadmissible hearsay. In this respect, the trial court abused its discretion.
The state court's conclusion—that the Vasquez DD5 “contained multiple layers of hearsay, and depended, for its relevancy, on at least some level being true”—would have been correct had Alvarez offered the report as a means of establishing the truth of its content (i.e., that the “problem” that Vasquez's friend “Julio” had “t[aken] care of” was the murdered Dan Colon and that when “Julio” called Vasquez soon after the shooting, he was confessing to Dan's murder). See People v. Alvarez, 845 N.Y.S.2d at 232. But that was not the object of Alvarez's cross-examination. Alvarez sought to demonstrate that the NYPD had failed to take even obvious, preliminary steps to investigate the leads that were generated by Vasquez's interview—summarized in the Vasquez DD5. Alvarez's strategy, which defense counsel heralded during opening and emphasized in closing, was to show that the NYPD's incomplete investigation indicated that the NYPD had prematurely concluded that Alvarez was the guilty party, and in that way to raise a reasonable doubt that Alvarez was in fact responsible. This defense theory did not depend on the veracity of any of Vasquez's (or, for that matter, Julio's) statements.
In a later ruling, the state trial court justified its decision to restrict Alvarez's inquiry into the Vasquez DD5 by citing a New York evidentiary rule governing admission of evidence implicating a third party. In People v. Primo, the New York Court of Appeals recently clarified that this rule—formerly known as the “clear link” rule—requires state trial courts to balance the probative value of defense evidence implicating a third party against its potential for causing prejudice and confusion, a standard rule of evidence. See 96 N.Y.2d at 356 (clarifying that state courts should analyze the “admissibility of third-party culpability evidence under the general balancing analysis that governs the admissibility of all evidence” and not under any higher standard). The state court's ruling on this alternate ground was also clearly unreasonable under established Sixth Amendment law: not only was it incorrect, but it left Alvarez without any means of supporting his defense theory. See Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227,232 (1988) (per curiam) (reversing conviction where “the limitation [placed on cross-examination] was beyond reason” given its centrality in undermining a lead witness's testimony). For the reasons that follow, we therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and “could not reasonably have determined” that this line of questioning was precluded under the proper application of this rule, as well as “standard rules of evidence concerning admissibility.” See Watson, 640 F.3d at 510 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Second, the trial court's grounds for barring this line of inquiry were seriously flawed. On the probative value side of the scale, there is no doubt that the content of the DD5 supported an inference that the police did not pursue the lead provided to them by Vasquez—an omission that could have led the jury seriously to doubt the adequacy of the murder investigation. But this fact was wholly overlooked by the state court. On the contrary, the judge asserted that Vasquez's description in the DD5 “does not, in my judgment, match the Defendant” because there was “an automobile that's described that does not fit any automobile that I know of that's involved in this case,” nor was there any other evidence of a dispute between Dan Colon and “a Julio” or his wife. There are certainly enough parallels, however, that could be drawn between the alternate suspect and the information the police had about the murder to make Julio Guerrero a person of interest in the investigation: Guerrero's first name, his general physical characteristics, and his automobile's color and appearance were consistent with the descriptions given to the police by eyewitnesses to the shooting. And had detectives investigated the lead, they would quickly have learned that Guerrero lived not far from the crime scene.
Of course, there was a risk that the jury would have interpreted this line of questioning to suggest Julio Guerrero's guilt of the crime—the type of confusion or unfair prejudice this rule was intended to prevent. And as we have said, “trial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits” to avoid such harms. Watson, 640 F.3d at 510 (quoting Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 479). In the unusual circumstances of this case, however, the combined effect of the state trial court's erroneous hearsay and Primo rulings entirely precluded Alvarez from fleshing out his main defense theory: that the police investigation into the murder was flawed and had improperly disregarded a promising alternate suspect.
In Watson v. Greene, we held that there had been no Confrontation Clause violation when the trial court prohibited the defendant in a homicide prosecution from cross-examining a police witness about the contents of an anonymous phone tip, contained in another officer's note. 640 F.3d at 511. The tip was traced to an off-duty officer who explained that she called in the tip after overhearing her family members repeat rumors relating to another suspect's involvement in the murder. Id. at 510. The police never discovered the identity of the officer who recorded her tip. Id. at 504. Watson held that the trial court's exclusion was not an “unreasonable” application of Sixth Amendment law for these reasons: (a) the likelihood that the note would cause confusion; (b) the police department's inability to determine the note's author; (c) the strength of the evidence the police already possessed may have indicated to the jury that a disregard of the note “did not reflect a serious lack of thoroughness in the police investigation”; and (d) the fact that the defendant had available to him, and indeed had introduced, ample alternative evidence to discredit the police investigation. Id. at 511–12.
The present case is quite different, for the trial court's exclusion left Alvarez without any support for his theory of the case. And the district attorney repeatedly emphasized that shortcoming in summation, labeling as “speculation” criticism of the police investigation and “submit[ting] to” the jury that the detectives “did a good job on this case” and “followed up on leads.” “By thus cutting off all questioning about an event the State conceded had taken place,” the state court disabled Alvarez from contradicting Detective Alfred's portrayal of the NYPD investigation as thorough and reliable. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 677, 679 (the Confrontation Clause is violated when “the trial court prohibited all inquiry into” a potential source of bias on the part of a witness, a ruling that “kept from the jury facts ․ that were central to assessing [the witness's] reliability”); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284,302 (1973) (holding that state evidentiary rules “may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice” where the result is the exclusion of “testimony ․ critical to [the] defense”). Moreover, we cannot determine regarding the Vasquez lead (as the panel could in Watson as to the anonymous note) that the disregard of the lead, given the relative weakness of the case against Alvarez, would not have been taken by the jury as “reflect [ing] a serious lack of thoroughness in the police investigation.” See 640 F.3d at 511. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court's total exclusion of inquiry into the Vasquez DD5 was an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Sixth Amendment law.
“[B]ecause of the deference we afford to state courts, we ‘find an error harmless unless it had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict.’ “ Corby v. Artus, 699 F.3d 159, 169 (2d Cir.2012) (quoting Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112,116 (2007)). The Supreme Court in Delaware v. Van Arsdall listed the following factors to determine whether a state trial court's exclusion of evidence amounted to harmless error: (1) “the overall strength of the prosecution's case;” (2) “the importance of the witness' [s] testimony;” (3) “whether the testimony was cumulative;” (4) “the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points;” and (5) “the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted.” 475 U.S. at 684. The state has a “significant burden of persuasion” to convince the court that any error was harmless. Fry, 551 U.S. at 122 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
All five Supreme Court factors favor Alvarez. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684. The importance to the defense of cross-examining Detective Alfred about unpursued leads in the Vasquez DD5 cannot be overstated. Alvarez's strategy was to introduce enough suspicion about the thoroughness of the NYPD investigation to plant a reasonable doubt that the government met its burden of proof. By excluding this entire line of questioning, the trial court deprived Alvarez of evidence essential to his primary defense. Moreover, the trial court's ruling deprived Alvarez of any supporting evidence, since Vasquez and Guerrero could not be found, and it appears that the state court never agreed to permit Detective Monaco to testify. That is to say, in this case, testimony tending to discredit the NYPD investigation would not have been cumulative; indeed, it would have been Alvarez's only such evidence. Cf. Corby, 699 F.3d at 167 (finding no Confrontation Clause violation when, allowed limited cross-examination, the defendant “was able to show that [the witness] had a motive to lie” and “that, to the extent [the witness] would falsely accuse anyone, [the defendant] was the most plausible candidate.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To bolster its harmlessness argument, the state contends, and the First Department agreed, that Julio Guerrero could have been Julio Alvarez's accomplice/passenger—the “two Julios theory,” if you will. This possibility, the state tells us, renders any error harmless. See Resp'ts' Br. at 61. The notion that two similar-looking fellows named “Julio,” with no obvious relationship or common motive, committed the crime together is laughable. But, even apart from this, the failure to investigate Guerrero, whatever his role in the shooting, still reflects poorly on the police investigation of Alvarez. It is hard to believe that the jury would not have found material to its evaluation of the police investigation the government's failure to follow up on Guerrero.
Finally, and of particular significance here, we consider a sixth factor in addition to the Supreme Court's five: “[W]hether the cross-examination of which the defendant was deprived was of a nature that was likely to affect the result.” Brinson, 547 F.3d at 396. The government's case against Alvarez was “far from overwhelming.” Id. There was no forensic evidence tying Alvarez to the shooting. The two witnesses who identified Alvarez, Aramis and Manny, did so based on observations made during a shootout—as Manny, wounded, ran from the scene and Aramis played dead in the street. And Margie Rodriguez—shown photographs of Alvarez's car at trial-insisted that his was not the car she had seen fleeing the shooting.
Had the jury additionally known that the police did not pursue Vasquez's tips, it could have concluded that the police prejudged Alvarez's guilt. On this basis, the jury might well have found reasonable doubt that Alvarez was responsible. The jury never heard how Vasquez told Detective Monaco that “Julio” had admitted, on the night of the shooting, that Julio “took care of” his “problem,” or that Vasquez had told the police that he understood Julio to be confessing his involvement in Dan Colon's murder. Nor did the jury learn that Vasquez gave the police information to track down Julio—including his physical description, his car make and color, his phone number, his wife's name and nicknames, his sidekick's name and car make, and directions to his house—and that the NYPD, nevertheless, did not pursue any of these leads. A properly instructed jury—clearly cautioned not to treat testimony about the contents of the Vasquez DD5 as evidence of Julio Guerrero's guilt—might, nonetheless, easily have concluded that the NYPD ignored these leads because it had already set its sights on Julio Alvarez. As a result, Alvarez's manslaughter and assault convictions—gained without the jury's knowledge of the Vasquez DD5—were far from inevitable.
Whether the jury would ultimately have agreed that the police investigation was so wanting as to raise a reasonable doubt about Alvarez's guilt is not for us to decide. It is sufficient that the jury might well have reached that conclusion, had it learned of the many links—including Guerrero's name, proximity, car color, and “borrowed 9 mm” gun-between Julio Guerrero and the shooting. But for the trial court's unreasonable interpretation of clearly established Sixth Amendment law and the error that resulted from that interpretation, the jury might well have acquitted Alvarez not only of murder, but of any involvement in the crime. See Brinson, 347 F.3d at 397.
We, therefore, AFFIRM the District Court's order granting Alvarez's petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. To avoid confusion, we refer to Dan Colon and Manny Colon by their first names.
2. The reliability of this in-person identification is not before us on appeal.
3. Rodriguez testified at trial that Alvarez's gold Toyota Camry was not the car she saw the shooters use to leave the crime scene as she watched from her window overlooking Bryant Avenue. She described the shooters' vehicle as a smaller, gray or silver car with an oval-shaped sunroof.


The plaintiffs, 741 Realty, Inc. and Storaway, Inc., bring this action seeking injunctive relief against the defendant seeking to enforce two restrictive covenants which they claim pertain to property owned by the defendant known as 710 Derby Ave.
Based on the evidence presented at trial, the court finds the following facts to have been proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence. In May of 1960, Vincent J. Daddio, Sr. and Vincent J. Daddio, Jr. conveyed a parcel of land known as 710-714-716 Derby Avenue to Ann Marie Attruia (Area outlined in red on plaintiffs' exhibit #1). At the time of that transfer the grantor, Vincent J. Daddio, Sr. retained an adjoining parcel known as 720 Derby Avenue for his own use as a homestead. The deed to Attruia contained the following restriction: "No structure shall be erected on said premises other than for residential purposes and for garaging of cars in connection with said residence." It was the intention of the grantors in the conveyance to Attruia that the restrictive covenant contained in the deed was to benefit the land retained by the grantor or grantors rather than to create a general plan of development.
On September 30, 1986 Nicholas Attruia conveyed the parcel known as 710-714-716 Derby Avenue to Joseph C. Jalowiec subject to the same restriction. (Nicholas Attruia had obtained title through a Certificate of Devise from the Estate of Anna M. Attruia). On January 20, 1987 Joseph C. Jalowiec conveyed that same parcel to 741 Realty again subject to the same restriction.
On March 14, 1988, 741 Realty subdivided the parcel and conveyed a portion thereof which will be referred to as 710 Derby Avenue to William T. Sadick, and retained the portion which will be referred to as 714 Derby Avenue. The deed to Sadick provided that the premises were subject to the restrictions contained in the deed from the Daddios to Attruia referred to above. (Hereinafter Restriction #1). The deed from 741 Realty to Sadick also contained the restriction: (Hereinafter Restriction #2) "Restriction that no mini-storage units or commercial warehouses shall be built on said premises. This restriction shall expire on March 14, 2000." On August 21, 1992 741 Realty leased 714 Derby Avenue to Stor-Away, Inc. (714 Derby Avenue is represented by the non-cross hatched area depicted in plaintiff's exhibit #1 and 710 Derby Avenue is depicted by the cross hatched section depicted thereon). Stor-Away, Inc. is in the mini-storage warehouse leasing business and intends to utilize 714 Derby Avenue for that purpose.
Sadick mortgaged 710 Derby Ave. to Derby Savings Bank on March 25, 1988, and on August 13, 1993, Derby Savings Bank foreclosed on this mortgage. The mortgage deed and certificate of foreclosure contained only restriction #1. On September 29, 1993, Derby Savings Bank conveyed 710 Derby Ave. to Vincent D'Addio, Jr. by warranty deed which contained neither restriction #1 nor restriction #2.
In connection with the earlier litigation involving the parties in this action, restriction #1 was released as to 714 Derby Ave. but that restriction was not released as to 710 Derby Ave.
Prior to 1993 when the defendant acquired 710 Derby Ave., a building on that parcel was used as a real estate office. Since the defendant has acquired the property, the building has been used as a hairdressing salon. The remaining area of 710 Derby Ave. is being used by the defendant to house storage containers. The storage containers in question range in size between 10 feet x 20 feet and 10 feet x 40 feet. The containers are rented to the public for the purpose of storing various items of personal property including household items. Entry is gained through doors in the front of such units. The containers presently on 710 Derby Ave. are set on concrete blocks, not permanently affixed to a foundation and can be moved with a forklift. Such units are also suitable for rental off the premises. 710 Derby Ave. has been leveled, gravel put down and a retaining wall and parking berms constructed. There are at present 25 — 26 such containers on 710 Derby Ave., none of which have been utilized off the premises. The rental charge for such containers is $50 per month.
The plaintiffs claim that both restrictive covenants remain in effect, are enforceable by them and have been violated by the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, claims that restriction #1 has been extinguished by virtue of merger of titles; that restriction #1, if it remains in effect, is not enforceable by the plaintiffs; and that restriction #2 has not been violated and does not preclude those activities which the defendant is conducting on 710 Derby Ave. Each restriction warrants separate discussion.
The court agrees with the defendant that, insofar as 710 Derby Ave. is concerned, restriction #1 has been extinguished by virtue of the defendant becoming the owner of that parcel. A restrictive covenant is extinguished when the right to enforce the covenant and the obligation to perform it come to rest with one person. Restatement, Property, § 555(a); 20 Am.Jur.2d, Covenants, Conditions, Etc., § 271; Thodos v. Shirk, 248 Iowa 172, 79 N.W.2d 733 (1956). As will be discussed below, the court believes that the right to enforce restriction #1 rests with the defendant.
The defendant claims that restriction #1 is not enforceable by the plaintiffs because plaintiffs are not the owner of the land that restriction #1 was intended to benefit. The court agrees.
As has been set forth above, the court finds that it was the intention of the grantors that restriction #1 was intended to benefit their retained land and it was not their intention to adopt a general plan of development with each parcel subject to such restriction. Under such circumstances, the restrictive covenant is enforceable by the owner of the benefitted [benefited] parcel. SeeWhitton v. Clark, 112 Conn. 28 (1930); 20 Am.Jur.2d, Covenants, Conditions, Etc., § 294. Where a parcel of land is sold which is burdened with a restrictive covenant and is thereafter subdivided but not under a plan of general development, the owners of the subdivided parcels ordinarily cannot enforce such restrictions as between themselves as they are not owners of the property which such restriction was intended to benefit. See 51 A.L.R.3d 556, 5600, § 7[b].
For the above reasons, restriction #1 cannot form the basis for granting the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.
As set forth above, restriction #2 is first contained in the deed conveying 710 Derby Ave. from 741 Realty, Inc. to William F. Sadick and provides: "Restriction that no mini-storage units or commercial warehouses shall be built on said premises. This restriction shall expire on March 14, 2000."
The plaintiffs claim that the activities of the plaintiff 710 Derby Ave. are in violation of restriction #2 in that the storage containers referred to above constitute "mini-storage units" which have been "built on said premises." The defendant argues to the contrary that the presence of the storage containers on 710 Derby Ave. do not violate the wording of restriction #2. The court agrees with the plaintiff that the activities of the defendant presently being conducted at 710 Derby Ave. are in violation of restriction #2.
There is little question that the containers in question are used for storage purposes and come within the framework of the term "mini-storage units". The defendant maintains, however, that due to their non-permanent status as described above, they have not been "built" on the premises and are thus not subject to this restriction.
In determining how to construe a certain term in a restrictive covenant, the court should consider the facts of each case with a view toward giving effect to the manifest intention and purpose of the parties. See 20 Am.Jur.2d, Covenants, Conditions, Etc., § 194, and cases cited therein. As pointed out by the plaintiffs in their brief, the term "built" is broad enough to encompass the storage containers on 710 Derby Ave.
In construing the meaning of restriction #2, the court also finds proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs, at the time of the transfer of 710 Derby Ave. to Sadick, were in the warehouse storage business on Derby Ave. in the vicinity of that parcel and contemplated such usage of 714 Derby Ave. The court can therefore draw a reasonable inference that it was the intent and purpose of the parties that restriction #2 was included in the deed to Sadick so as to prevent 710 Derby Ave. from being used for a competing business purpose.
Based upon the above, the court finds that the defendant, with respect to those activities presently being conducted on 710 Derby Ave., is in violation of restriction #2. The court further finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the terms of restriction #2 as against the defendant.
The defendant has not produced evidence from which the court can find that the plaintiffs are barred from enforce restriction #2 by virtue of the doctrine of unclean hands and therefore the court finds the defendant's special defense not to have been proven.
Wherefore, the defendant is hereby enjoined from using premises at 710 Derby Ave. for mini-storage units or commercial warehouses, including the use to which such premises are presently being utilized as set forth in the court's factual findings.
The court further orders that the defendant remove the storage containers presently situated on 710 Derby Ave. on or before August 1, 1995.


Decedent passed away leaving Surviving Spouse, a non-U.S. citizen, as the beneficiary of Decedent's estate. Surviving Spouse was the trustee of Trust 1 and executor of Decedent's estate. A provision in Trust 1 stated that the trustee was to distribute outright the trust estate to Surviving Spouse. Surviving Spouse was advised by an accountant and a law firm that to claim a marital deduction for the estate, a Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT) was required. Trust 2 was created with a QDOT election and the estate claimed a marital deduction on Form 706. After Form 706 was filed, additional estate assets were discovered. Decedent's estate requested an extension of time under Sec. 301.9100-3 to make a QDOT election under Sec. 2056A(d) on the subsequently discovered assets.
Under Sec. 2001(a) there is a tax imposed on the transfer of a taxable estate of every U.S. decedent citizen or resident. The value of the taxable estate is determined by deducting amounts passed to the surviving spouse from the gross estate. Sec. 2056(a). Section 2056(d)(1)(A) states that if a surviving spouse is not a U.S. citizen, no deduction is allowed under Sec. 2056(a). Section 2056(d)(2)(A) provides that property passing to a surviving spouse in a QDOT is exempted from treatment under Sec. 2056(d)(1)(A). For a trust to qualify as a QDOT, three requirements must be met. First, the trust instrument must have at least one U.S. citizen or domestic corporation trustee with the right to withhold estate tax from principal distributions of the trust. Second, the trust must meet the Sec. 2056A(b) tax collection requirements. The third requirement is that the executor must elect QDOT treatment. Regulation 301.9100-3 allows for an extension of time to be granted if the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good faith and the relief granted will not prejudice the interests of the government. Regulation 301.9100-3(b)(1)(v) states that a taxpayer will be deemed to have acted reasonably and in good faith if the taxpayer reasonably relied on a qualified tax professional who failed to make, or advise the taxpayer to make, the election. Here, the Service determined that Surviving Spouse met the requirements of Sec. 301.9100-3 and granted an extension of 120 days from the date of the letter to make a QDOT election on the subsequently discovered assets.
This letter responds to your personal representative's letter of December 29, 2017, requesting an extension of time pursuant to §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3 of the Procedure and Administration Regulations to make a Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT) election under § 2056A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code).
On Date, Decedent died testate, survived by spouse (Spouse). Spouse was not a citizen of the United States at that time.
Under Article II of his will, Decedent bequeathed the residue of his estate to Trust 1. Spouse is the trustee of Trust 1 and the executor of Decedent's estate.
Article 3.2 of Trust 1 provides, in relevant part, that upon Decedent's death, the trustee is to distribute outright the trust estate to Spouse.
In Spouse's capacity as executor of Decedent's estate, Spouse engaged the legal services of an accountant and law firm to provide advice regarding and to prepare the Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping) Tax Return. Accountant and law firm advised Spouse that a Qualified Domestic Trust (QDOT) was required for the estate to claim a marital deduction. Trust 2 was formed as a QDOT and assets were transferred to Trust 2. On Schedule M of Form 706, the estate claimed a marital deduction. After the Form 706 was filed, additional assets were discovered.
Decedent's estate is requesting an extension of time under §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3 to make a QDOT election under § 2056A(d) with respect to assets in the amount of $X.
Section 2056(a) provides that, for purposes of the tax imposed by § 2001, the value of the taxable estate is to be determined by deducting from the value of the gross estate an amount equal to the value of any interest in property that passes or has passed from the decedent to the surviving spouse.
Under § 2056(b)(7), a marital deduction is allowed for qualified terminable interest property (QTIP), which is defined under § 2056(b)(7)(B) as property (i) which passes from the decedent, (ii) in which the surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life, and (iii) to which the election under § 2056(b)(7)(B)(v) applies. Section 2056(b)(7)(B)(v) provides that the election with respect to any property shall be made by the executor on the return of tax imposed by § 2001.
Section 2506(b)(7)(B)(ii) provides that a surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life in property if (i) the surviving spouse is entitled to all of the income from the property, payable annually or at more frequent intervals, and (ii) no person has a power to appoint any part of the property to any person other than the surviving spouse.
Section 2056(d)(1)(A) provides that if the surviving spouse is not a citizen of the United States, no deduction shall be allowed under § 2056(a). However, § 2056(d)(2)(A) provides that § 2056(d)(1)(A) will not apply to any property passing to the surviving spouse in a QDOT.
Under § 2056A, in order for a trust to qualify as a QDOT: (1) the trust instrument must require that at least one trustee of the trust be an individual citizen of the United States or domestic corporation and that no distribution other than a distribution of income may be made from the trust unless a trustee who is an individual citizen of the United States or a domestic corporation has the right to withhold from the distribution the additional estate tax imposed by § 2056A(b)(1) on the distribution; (2) the trust must meet the requirements that are prescribed under Treasury regulations to ensure the collection of the tax imposed by § 2056A(b); and (3) the executor must make the election prescribed by § 2056A(d) to treat the trust as QDOT.
Under § 2056A(d) and § 20.2056A-3(a) of the Estate Tax Regulations, the election to treat a trust as a QDOT must be made on the last federal estate tax return filed before the due date (including extensions of time to file actually granted) or, if a timely return is not filed, on the first federal estate tax return filed after the due date. The election, once made, is irrevocable. No election may be made if the return is filed more than one year after the due date of the return.
Section 301.9100-1(c) provides that the Commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time under the rules set forth in §§ 301.9100-2 and 301.9100-3 to make a regulatory election, or a statutory election (but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad), under all subtitles of the Code, except subtitles E, G, H, and I.
Section 301.9100-3 provides the standards the Commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election whose due date is prescribed by a regulation (and not expressly provided by statute).
A request for relief under § 301.9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good faith, and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government.
Based on the facts submitted and the representations made, we conclude that the requirements of §§ 301.9100-1 and 301.9100-3 have been satisfied. Accordingly, we grant an extension of time of 120 days from the date of this letter to make a QDOT election with respect to Trust 2 in the amount of $X.
The election should be made on a supplemental Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return filed with the Cincinnati Service Center, at the following address: Internal Revenue Service, Cincinnati Service Center, Stop 82, Cincinnati, OH 45999. A copy of this letter should be attached to the supplemental Form 706. A copy is enclosed for this purpose.
Except as expressly provided herein, we neither express nor imply any opinion concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this letter.


text:
1700 groups of frequently used Chinese synonyms = [1700 dui jin yi ci yu yong Fa dui bi] / Yang Jizhou and Jia Yongfen.
by Yang, Jizhou | Jia, Yongfen.
Material type: Book; Format: print regular print ; Literary form: Not fiction Publisher: [Beijing] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2007Other title: 1700 dui jin yi ci yu yong fa dui bi.Availability: Items available for reference: Boonchoo Treethong Library, Lampang Campus [Call number: LANG&LIT PL 2007 668643] (1), Pridi Banomyong Library [Call number: LANG&LIT PL 2007 668643] (1), Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: LANG&LIT PL 2007 668643] (1).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 1, Jin bu pian : ting he shuo] = Road to success. 1, Upper elementary : listening and speaking / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Wang Xiaoshan bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Wang, Xiaoshan.
Edition: Di 2 ci yinshua.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2009Other title: Road to success. listening and speaking.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C445 2009 V. 1] (1). Checked out (2).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 1, Ti gao pian] = Road to success. 1, Lower intermediate / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Huang Danna bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Huang, Danna.
Edition: Di 1 ban.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Other title: Road to success..Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C447 2008 V. 1] (1). Checked out (1).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 1, Jin bu pian : du he xie] = Road to success. 1, Upper elementary : reading and writing / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Wang Ruifeng bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Wang, Ruifeng.
Edition: Di 2 ci yinshua.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2009Other title: Road to success..Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C443 2009 V. 1] (1).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 2, Ti gao pian] = Road to success. 2, Lower intermediate / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Sui Yan bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Sui, Yan.
Edition: Di 1 ban.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Other title: Road to success..Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C447 2008 V. 2] (2).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 2, Jin bu pian : ting he shuo] = Road to success. 2, Upper elementary : listening and speaking / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Shen Hongdan bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Shen, Hongdan.
Edition: Di 2 ci yinshua.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2009Other title: Road to success. listening and speaking.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C445 2009 V.2] (3).
[Cheng gong zhi lu. 2, Jin bu pian : du he xie] = Road to success. 2, Upper elementary : reading and writing / [Qiu Jun zhu bian ; Yu Ping bian zhu].
by Qiu, Jun | Yu, Ping.
Edition: Di 2 ci yinshua.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2009Other title: Road to success..Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .C443 2009 V. 2] (1).
[Cheng gong zhi lu : Ru men pian] = Road to success : Threshold / [Qiu Jun, zhang hui].
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Other title: Road to success : Threshold.Availability: No items available Checked out (1).
[Cheng gong zhi lu : Chong ci pian = Road to success : Lower advanced / Yu Kun, Wang Youmin.
by Yu, Kun | Wang, Youmin.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008-2009Other title: Road to success : Lower advanced.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1119 .Y77] (3).
[Cheng gong zhi lu : Jin bu pian = Road to success : Upper elementary / Mu Shirong, Zhang Hui.
by Mu, Shirong | Zhang, Hui.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Other title: Road to success : Upper elementary.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .M87] (2).
[Cheng gong zhi lu : Cheng gong pian] = Road to success : Advanced / Zhao Dongmei, Li Xiaoli.
by Zhao, Dongmei | Li, Xiaoli.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008-2009Other title: Road to success : Advanced.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1128 .Z453] (2).
[Du bao zhi Zhongguo : bao kan yue du ji chu] = Learning about China from newspapers : elementary newspaper reading / [Wu Yamin bian zhu ; Fan Liyun fan yi].
by Wu, Yamin | Fan, Liyun.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: [Beijing, China] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2006-2007Other title: Learning about China from newspapers : elementary newspaper reading.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1129.E5 .D53] (1). Checked out (1).
[Dui wai Han yu jiao xue shi yong yu fa / Lu Fubo zhu].
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2007Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1103 .L84] (1).
Evolutionary illustration of Chinese characters / written and sketched by Li Leyi ; translated by Jiang Lizhu.
by Li, Leyi, 1937- | Jiang, Lizhu.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: [Beijing] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2000Availability: Items available for loan: Pridi Banomyong Library [Call number: PL1171 .L5] (1).
[Gen da tou er zi he xiao tou ba ba xue Han yu / zhu bian, Zheng Tian'gang ; fu zhu bian, Lu Pingzhou ; bian zhe, Zu Xiaomei ... [deng]].
by Zheng, Tian'gang | Lu, Pingzhou | Zu, Xiaomei.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: [Beijing, China] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1129.E5 G46] (1).
[Gu Han yu ru men / Zhou Ying bian zhu] = Introduction to classical Chinese / Ying Tiang.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: [Beijing, China] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2009Other title: Introduction to classical Chinese.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1129.E5 .G84] (2).
[Han yu hui hua 301 ju / Kang Yuhua, Lai Siping bian zhu ; Zhu Wenjun fan yi] = Conversational Chinese 301 / compiled by Kang Yuhua and Lai Siping ; translated by Zhu Wenjun.
by Kang, Yuhua | Lai, Siping | Zhu, Wenjun.
Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: [Beijing, China] : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2007Other title: Conversational Chinese 301.Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1129.E5 H357] (1).
[Han yu jiao cheng (xiu ding ben) : jiao shi yong shu. Di yi-er ce / Yang Jizhou bian zhu].
Edition: Di 1 ban.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2007Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1065 .H36 2007 V. 1-2] (1).
[Han yu jiao cheng (xiu ding ben) : jiao shi yong shu. Di san ce / Yang Jizhou bian zhu].
Edition: Di 1 ban.Material type: Book; Format: print Publisher: Beijing : Beijing Language and Culture University Press, 2008Availability: Items available for loan: Puey Ungphakorn Library, Rangsit Campus [Call number: PL1065 .H36 2008 V. 3] (1).

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


text:
Zvereva E. V., Kutieva M. V.
Nowadays language education is undergoing serious anthropocentric transformations. Teachers, who creatively process foreign experience, conduct a deep search for activity-oriented methodologies, including a maximum of interactive forms of instruction in the lesson. One of the most effective among them is theatricality. We view theatricality as a highly effective pedagogical resource that generates the communicative and discursive multicompetences, motivating students, fomenting their socialization and increasing the attractiveness for them of a foreign language lesson. Dramatizing practice implements pedagogical activity approach. Theatrical episode is a kind of public speaking, which develops various subspecies of human intellect. In theatre plays, everything is important: words, voice, speech tempo, timbre, pause, glance, gesture, movement, body language. It is very important working with gestures, obligatory in theatre situation, because traditional lesson blocks gestures’ aspect. The student learns to impress play-partners and feel this impact as some kind of a psychological victory over oneself. A specific contact with others on professional subjects occurs. Students see themselves forced to develop certain proper tactics contacting and influencing the others. It is very necessary in life and profession. Students learn to control mood and attitude among classmates, overcoming their fears; train spontaneity and ease in speech; acquire skill of public speaking and critical skills verbal interaction.
1.	Konyakhina I. V. Kompetentnostnyy podkhod v vysshem professional’nom obrazovanii (teoreticheskiy aspekt) [Competence approach in higher professional education (theoretical-methodological aspects)]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2012, no. 11 (126), pp. 68–71 (in Russian).
2.	Azbukina E. Yu. Ispol’zovanie elementov teatral’noj pedagogiki pri rabote s dezadaptirovannymi podrostkami [The use of theatrical pedagogics in work with maladjustable teenagers]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2010, no. 1 (91), pp. 70–74 (in Russian).
3.	Orlova O. V., Titova V. N. Geymifikatsiya kak sposob organizatsii obucheniya [Gamification as a way of learning organization]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2015, no. 9 (162), pp. 60–64 (in Russian).
4.	Utkina V. I., Polyakova N. V. Rol’ proektnoy deyatel’nosti v formirovanii professional’nykh kompetentsiy obuchayushchikhsya pedagogicheskogo vuza [Role of project activities in the formation of professional competences of students of pedagogical university]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – TSPU Bulletin, 2016, no. 4 (169), pp. 70–75 (in Russian).
5.	Trovato G. Aspectos lúdicos en la didáctica de la mediación lingüística y cultural para estudiantes de español L2: el juego de rol como actividad para fomentar la competencia pluricultural y el aprendizaje cooperativo. Revista electrónica de didáctica del español lengua extranjera. 2015. No 27. URL: http://www.mecd.gob.es/dctm/redele/Material-RedEle/Revista/201527/2015-redele-27-6-giuseppe-trovato.pdf?documentId=0901e72b81ce2594 (accessed: 01.03.2017).
6.	Leont’ev A. A. Psikhologiya obshcheniya [Psychology of communication]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 1999. 365 p. (in Russian).
7.	Aunión J. A. Solo se recuerda lo que se siente // El País. 12.10.2011. URL: http://elpais.com/diario/2011/10/12/ultima/1318370402_850215.html (accessed: 05.04.2017).
8.	Sesmilo Pina A. Actividades afectivas para un aprendizaje más efectivo. URL: http://www.hispanorama.de/fileadmin/hispanorama/user_upload/documents/veranstaltungen2016/NeuroELE_Nuremberg.pdf (accessed: 05.04.2017).
9.	Stanislavskiy K. S. Rech na pervom uroke uchenikam, sotrudnikam i akteram filial’nogo otdeleniya MHT [Speech at the first lesson to students, employees and actors at the branch of the Moscow Art Theatre]. Sobraniye sochineniy: v 9 t. [Collected works: in 9 vol.]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1993 (in Russian).
10.	Vartanova V. V. Formirovaniye avtonomnosti studentov v kontekste teatral’noy deyatel’nosti pri obuchenii inostrannomu yazyku [Formation of students’ autonomy in the context of the theatrical activity when learning a foreign language]. Al’manakh sovremennoy nauki i obrazovaniya – Almanac of modern science and education, 2008, no. 10 (17), part 1, pp. 38–39 (in Russian).
11.	Oleshkevich N. A., Malkova N. Yu. Mimeticheskiye i performativnyye praktiki v realizatsii praktiko-orientirovannogo podkhoda v obuchenii [Mimetic and performative practice in implementation of practice-oriented approach in teaching]. Territoriya novykh vozmozhnostey – Territory of new opportunities, 2013, no. 4 (22), pp. 117–126 (in Russian).
12.	Boquete G. El uso del juego dramático en la enseñanza de lenguas: las destrezas orales [The use of dramatic game in languages teaching: oral habits]. Thesis doctoral. Madrid. Universidad de Alcalá. 2011. 659 p. URL: https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/imprimirFicheroTesis.do?fichero=30865 (accessed: 01.03.2017).
13.	Cómitre I., Valverde J. M. Desarrollo de la competencia oral de la L2 a través de actividades dramáticas [Development of oral competences in second language throught dramatical activities]. Ruiz R., Martínez M. A. Propuestas metodológicas para la enseñanza de las lenguas extranjeras. Texto dramático y representación teatral. Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1996. Pp. 171–180.

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


text:
Beier, S., P. Holtermann, D. Numberger, T. Schott, L. Umlauf, and K. Jürgens. A metatranscriptomics-based assessment of small-scale mixing of sulfidic and oxic waters on redoxcline prokaryotic communities. Environ. Microbiol., 21, 584-602, doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.14499, 2019.
Umlauf, L., P. Holtermann, C. A. Gillner, R. Prien, L. Merckelbach, J. R. Carpenter. Diffusive convection under rapidly varying conditions. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 48, 1731–1747, doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-18-0018.1, 2018.
Bartl, I., I. Liskow, K. Schulz, L. Umlauf, and M. Voss. River plume and bottom boundary layer – Hotspots for nitrification in a coastal bay? Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 208, 70-82, doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2018.04.023, 2018.
Burchard, H., K. Bolding, R. Feistel, U. Grawe, K.Klingbeil , P. MacCready, V. Mohrholz, L. Umlauf, E. M.van der Lee. The Knudsen theorem and the Total Exchange Flow analysis framework applied to the Baltic Sea, Progr. Oceanogr., 165, 168-186, doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2018.04.004, 2018.
Holtermann, P., R. Prien, M. Naumann, V. Mohrholz, and L. Umlauf. Deep-water dynamics and mixing processes during a major inflow event in the central Baltic Sea, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 6648–6667, doi:10.1002/2017JC013050, 2017.
Schulz, K., T. Endoh, and L. Umlauf. Slope-induced tidal straining: Analysis of rotational effects, J. Geophys. Res., 122, 2069-2089, doi: 10.1002/2016JC012448, 2017.
Lappe, C., and L. Umlauf. Efficient boundary mixing due to near-inertial waves in a non-tidal basin: Observations from the Baltic Sea. J. Geophys. Res., 121, 8287-8304, doi: 10.1002/2016JC011985, 2016.
Becherer, J., G. Flöser, L. Umlauf, and H. Burchard. Esturatine circulation vs tidal pumping: Sediment transport in a well-mixed tidal inlet. J. Geophys. Res., 121, 6251-6270, doi: 10.1002/2016JC011640, 2016.
Schulz, K., and L. Umlauf. Residual transport of suspended material by tidal straining near sloping topography. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 46, 2083-2102, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-15-0218.1, 2016.
Schmale, O., S. Krause, P. Holtermann, N. C. Power Guerra, and L. Umlauf. Dense bottom gravity currents and their impact on pelagic methanotrophy at oxic/anoxic transition zones. Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1002/2016GL069032, 2016.
Endoh, T., Y. Yoshikawa, T. Matsuno, Y. Wakata, K.-J. Lee, and L. Umlauf. Observational evidence for tidal straining over a sloping continental shelf, Cont. Shelf. Res., 117, 12–19, doi:10.1016/j.csr.2016.01.018, 2016.
Moghimi, S., J. Thompson, T. Ozkan-Haller, L. Umlauf, S. Zippel. On the modeling of wave-enhanced turbulence nearshore. Ocean Model., doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2015.11.004, 2016.
Umlauf, L., J. N. Moum, and W. D. Smyth. Energetics of bottom Ekman layers during buoyancy arrest. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 45, 3099–3117, doi:10.1175/JPO-D-15-0041.1, 2015.
Becherer, J., M. T. Stacey, L. Umlauf, and H. Burchard. Lateral Circulation Generates Flood Tide Stratification and Estuarine Exchange Flow in a Curved Tidal Inlet. J. Phys.Oceanogr., 45, 638-656, 2015.
Holtermann, P. L., H. Burchard, U. Gräwe, K. Klingbeil, L. Umlauf. Deep-water dynamics and boundary mixing in a non-tidal stratified basin: A modeling study of the Baltic Sea. J. Geophys. Res.,119, 1465–1487, doi:10.1002/2013JC009483, 2014.
Yamazaki, H., C. Locke, L. Umlauf, H. Burchard, T. Ishimaru, and D. Kamykowski. A Lagrangian model for phototaxis-induced thin layer formation. Deep Sea Res. II, 101, 193-206, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.12.010, 2014.
Burchard, H., U. Gräwe, P. Holtermann, K. Klingbeil, and L. Umlauf. Turbulence closure modeling in coastal waters. Die Küste, 81, 69-87, 2014.
Smyth, W. D., H. Burchard and L. Umlauf. Baroclinic interleaving instability: second-moment closure approach. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 42, 764–784, doi: 10.1175/JPO-D-11-066.1, 2012.
Holtermann, P., L. Umlauf, T. Tanhua, O. Schmale, G. Rehder, and J. Waniek. The Baltic Sea Tracer Release Experiment. 1. Mixing rates. J. Geophys. Res., 117, C01021, doi:10.1029/2011JC007439, 2012.
Holtermann, P., and L. Umlauf. The Baltic Sea Tracer Release Experiment. 2. Mixing processes. J. Geophys. Res., 117, C01022, doi:10.1029/2011JC007445, 2012.
Dellwig, O., B. Schnetger, H.-J. Brumsack, H.-P. Grossart, and L. Umlauf. Dissolved reactive manganese at pelagic redoxclines (Part II): Hydrodynamic conditions for accumulation. J. Mar. Sys., 90, 31-41, doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.08.007, 2012.
Becherer, J. , H. Burchard, G. Flöser, V.Mohrholz, and L.Umlauf. Evidence of tidal straining in well-mixed channel flow from micro-structure observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L17611, doi:10.1029/2011GL049005, 2011.
Becherer, J., and L. Umlauf. Boundary mixing in lakes. 1. Modeling the effect of shear-induced convection. J. Geophys. Res., 116, C10017, doi:10.1029/2011JC007119, 2011.
Lorrai, C., L. Umlauf, J. Becherer, and A. Wüest . Boundary mixing in lakes. 2. Combined effects of shear-induced and convective turbulence on basin-scale mixing. J. Geophys. Res., 116, C10018, doi:10.1029/2011JC007121, 2011.
van der Lee, E. M., and L. Umlauf. Internal-wave mixing in the Baltic Sea: Near-inertial waves in the absence of tides. J. Geophys. Res., 116, C10016, doi:10.1029/2011JC007072, 2011.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard. Diapycnal transport and mixing efficiency in stratified boundary layers near sloping topography. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 41, 329-345, 2011.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, R. Hofmeister, and H. Burchard. Entrainment in shallow rotating gravity currents: A modeling study. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 40, 1819–1834, 2010.
Umlauf, L., The description of mixing in stratified layers without shear in large-scale ocean models, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 39, 3032-3039, 2009.
Umlauf, L., and L. Arneborg. Dynamics of rotating shallow gravity currents passing through a channel. Part I: Observation of transverse structure, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 39, 2385-2401, 2009.
Umlauf, L., and L. Arneborg. Dynamics of rotating shallow gravity currents passing through a channel. Part II: Analysis, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 39, 2402-2416, 2009.
Reissmann, J., H. Burchard, R. Feistel, E. Hagen, H.U. Lass, V. Mohrholz, G. Nausch, L. Umlauf, and G. Wieczorek, State-of-the-art review on vertical mixing in the Baltic Sea and consequences for eutrophication, Progr. Oceanogr., 82, 47-80, 2009.
Burchard, H., F. Janssen, K. Bolding, L. Umlauf, and H. Rennau, Model simulations of dense bottom currents in the Western Baltic Sea, Cont. Shelf Res., 29, 205-220, 2009.
Wieczorek, G., E. Hagen, and L. Umlauf, Eastern Gotland Basin case study of thermal variability in the wake of deep water intrusions, J. Mar. Sys., 74, S65-S79, 2008.
Umlauf, L, T. Tanhua, J. Waniek, O. Schmale, P. Holtermann, and G. Rehder, Hunting a new oceanic tracer, Eos, 89(43), 419-420, 2008.
Lorke, A., L. Umlauf, and V. Mohrholz, Stratification and mixing on sloping boundaries, Geophy. Res. Lett., 35, L14610, doi:10.1029/2008GL034607, 2008.
Holt, J., and L. Umlauf. Modelling the tidal mixing fronts and seasonal stratification of the northwest European continental shelf. Cont. Shelf. Res., 28, 887-903, 2008.
Arneborg, L., V. Fiekas, L. Umlauf, and H. Burchard. Gravity current dynamics and entrainment – A process study based on observations in the Arkona Basin, J. Phys. Oceangr., 37, 2094-2113, 2007.
Burchard, H., K. Bolding, W. Kühn, A. Meister, T. Neumann, and L. Umlauf. Description of a flexible and extendable physical-biogeochemical model system for the water column, J. Mar. Sys., 61,180-211, 2006.
Burchard, H.U. Lass, V. Mohrholz, L. Umlauf, J. Sellschopp, V. Fiekas, K. Bolding, and L. Arneborg. Dynamics of medium-intensity dense water plumes in the Arkona Sea, Western Baltic Sea, Ocean Dynamics, 55, 391-402, 2005.
Umlauf, L., and U. Lemmin. Inter-basin exchange and mixing in a large lake. The role of long internal waves. Limnol. Oceanogr., 50(5), 1601-1611, 2005.
Burchard, H., and L. Umlauf. Observations and numerical modelling of mixed layer turbulence: Do they represent the same statistical quantities? Deep-Sea Res. II, 52, 1069-1074, 2005.
Umlauf, L. Modelling the effects of horizontal and vertical shear in stratified turbulent flows. Deep Sea Res. II, 52, 1181-1201, 2005.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard. Second-order turbulence closure models for geophysical boundary layers. A review of recent work. Cont. Shelf Res., 25, 795-827, 2005. Invited paper.
Umlauf, L., H. Burchard, and K. Hutter, Extending the k-omega turbulence model towards oceanic applications, Ocean Modelling, 5, 195-218, 2003.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard, A generic length-scale equation for geophysical turbulence models, J. Mar. Res., 61, 235-265, 2003.
Umlauf. L., and H. Burchard, Reply to: "Comments on 'A generic length-scale equation for geophysical turbulence models'" by L. Kantha and S. Carniel, J. Mar. Res., 61, 703-706, 2003.
Thorpe, S. A., and L. Umlauf, Internal gravity wave frequencies and wavenumbers from single point measurements over a slope, J. Mar.Res., 60, 699-723, 2002.
Lorke, A., L. Umlauf, T. Jonas, and A. Wüst, Dynamics of turbulence in low-speed oscillating bottom-boundary layers of stratified basins, Environmental Fluid Mech., 2, 291-313, 2002.
Jöhnk, K., and L. Umlauf, Modeling the metalimnectic oxygen minimum in a medium sized alpine lake, Ecological Modeling, 136, 67-80, 1999.
L. Umlauf, Y. Wang, and K. Hutter, Comparing two topography-following primitive equation models for lake circulation, J. Comp. Phys., 153, 638-659, 1999.
Umlauf, L., Internal structure and dynamics of stratified flow over sloping topography, Habilitation Thesis, University of Rostock, Germany, 2013.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard, A generic transport equation for the length scale in turbulent flows. In: Marine Turbulence. Theory, Observations and Models. Edited by: H. Z. Baumert, J. H. Simpson, and J. Sündermann. Cambridge University Press. pp. 188-196, 2005.
Umlauf, L., Turbulence parameterisation in hydrobiological models for natural waters, PhD Thesis, Darmstadt University, Germany, pp 228, 2001. Download Part I and Part II.
Anderson, E., D., C. Troy, L. Umlauf, and J. Wang (Conveners). Comparing physical processes in large lakes, shallow seas, and semi-enclosed basins. Session PO24A at the Ocean Science Meeting 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA, 21-26 February 2016.
Beletsky, D., L. Umlauf, C. Troy, C. Wu, R. Rao, J. Wang (Conveners). Comparing physical processes in large lakes and shallow seas. Session 055 at the Ocean Science Meeting 2014, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23-28 February 2014.
Wirth, A., and L. Umlauf (Conveners). Small-scale Processes and their parameterization. Session OS14 at the EGU General Assembly 2010, Vienna, Austria.
Burchard, H., L. Umlauf, and F. Peters (eds.), Impact of Small-scale Physics on Marine Biology - Selected papers from the 2nd Warnemünde Turbulence Days, 28-30 September 2005, Rostock, Germany, J. Mar. Sys., 70, 215-308, 2008.
Umlauf, L., and G. Kirillin (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th workshop on physical processes in natural waters, Warnemünde, Germany, 3-6 September 2007, IGB report, 25, Leibniz-Institute for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries Berlin (IGB), Germany, 2007.
Burchard, H., and L. Umlauf (eds.), WTD 2003 Special Issue, papers presented at the First Warnemünde Turbulence Days, 17-19 September 2003, Warnemünde, Germany, Deep-Sea Res. II, 52, 1069-1357, 2005.
Nausch, G., R. Feistel, L. Umlauf, K. Nagel and H. Siegel, Hydrographisch-chemische Bedingungen in der deutschen ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone (AWZ) im Jahr 2008, Technical Report, Leibniz-Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnmünde, Germany, 2009.
Nausch, G., R. Feistel, L. Umlauf, K. Nagel and H. Siegel, Hydrographisch-chemische Zustandseinschätzung der Ostsee 2007. No. 72 of Marine Science Reports, Leibniz-Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnmünde, Germany, 2008.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard. Hydrodynamics - Lecture Notes, Baltic Sea Research Institute, Warnemünde, Germany, 2006.
Yakushev, E.V., F. Pollehne, G. Jost, I. Kuznetsov, B. Schneider and L. Umlauf. Redox Layer Model (ROLM): a tool for analysis of the water column oxic/anoxic interface processes. No. 68 of Marine Science Reports, Leibniz-Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemünde, Germany, 2006.
Umlauf, L., K. Bolding, and H. Burchard. GOTM – Scientific Documentation. Version 3.2. No. 63 of Marine Science Reports, Leibniz-Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Warnemünde, Germany, 2005.(Please check up-to-date version on www.gotm.net).
Umlauf, L. Mixing and entrainment in shallow gravity currents on a rotating slope. Oral presentation. Gordon Research Conference on Ocean Mixing, Andover, NH, USA, 05 June 2018. Invited.
Umlauf, L., and C. Lappe. Boundary mixing in nontidal basins: Observations from the Batlic Sea. Oral presentation. 49th Liège Colloqium on Ocean Dynamics, Liège, Belgium, 25 May 2017.
Umlauf, L., C. Lappe, and P. Holtermann. Turbulence and mixing in a rotating shallow bottom gravity current. Oral presentation. Ocean Science Meeting 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA, 24 February 2016.
Umlauf, L., P. Holtermann, H. Burchard, T. Tanhua, J. Ledwell, O. Schmale. Basin-scale overturning circulation and the role of small-scale processes (Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea). Workshop on Energy transfers in Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 20-22 April 2015.
A. Oschlies, and L. Umlauf. Geht der Ostsee die Luft aus? Summerschool organized by the "Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes". Mariehman, Aland-Islands, 17-23 August 2014. Invited.
Umlauf, L., J. N. Moum, and W. D. Smyth. Convective mixing and mixing efficiency in turbulent bottom boundary layers induced by internal waves. Oral presentation. Ocean Science Meeting 2014, Honolulu, HI, USA, 23-28 February 2014.
Umlauf, L. Turbulence and Mixing in the Baltic Sea. Oral presentation. Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA, 07 November 2013. Invited.
in stratified basins without tides. Oral presentation. What can be learned from the Baltic Sea? CILER-GERL seminar. NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigian, USA, 28 October 2013. Invited.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, H. Burchard. Dynamics of and Entrainment into thin, dense Boundary Currents descending from the Shelves into the Deep Basins. Oral presentation. IASC workshop on internal mixing processes in the Artic Ocean, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Woods Hole, MA, USA, 21 October 2013. Invited.
Umlauf, L. Who mixes the Baltic Sea? About gravity currents, internal waves, and topographic effects. Oral Presentation. Climate Science Seminar, Alfred-Wegener-Institut (AWI), Bremerhaven, Germany, 26 April 2013. Invited.
Umlauf, L., H. Burchard, U. Gräwe, P. Holtermann,A. Lorke. Lecture. Three-dimensional modeling of physical processes in lakes. Block Seminar Physical Limnology, IUP, Heidelberg University, Germany, 21 March 2013. Invited.
Umlauf, L., P. Holtermann, T. Tanhua, O. Schmale, G. Rehder, J. J. Waniek. Internal vs. boundary mixing: Results from a long-term tracer experiment in the Baltic Sea. IUP-AWI Seminar Ocean-Atmosphere-Cryosphere Interactions. Oral presentation. University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, 04 February 2013. Invited.
Umlauf, L., P. Holtermann, T. Tanhua, O. Schmale, G. Rehder, J. J. Waniek. Oral presentation. The Baltic Sea Tracer Release Experiment. CEEB Seminar, EAWAG, Kastanienbaum, Switzerland, 16 April 2012. Invited.
Umlauf, L. The Baltic Sea Tracer Release Experiment. Poster presentation. Ocean Sciences Meeting 2012, Salt Lake City, USA, 20-24 February 2012.
Umlauf, L. Mixing in the coastal ocean: What can be expected from today's turbulence models? Oral presentation. Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Seminar, Geesthacht, Germany, 10. March 2011. Invited.
Umlauf, L., E. M. van der Lee. Internal-wave mixing in the Baltic Sea: Near-inertial waves in the absence of tides. Oral presentation. 7th Baltic Sea Science Congress, Konferenz, St. Petersburg, Russia, 22.-26. August 2011.
E. M. van der Lee, L. Umlauf. Internal-wave mixing in the Baltic Sea: Near-inertial waves in the absence of tides. Warnemünde Turbulence Days, Konferenz, Vilm, Germany, 05-08. September 2011.
Umlauf, L. The effect of rotation on entrainment in bottom gravity currents. Oral presentation. Workshop on Small-scale variability in the general circulation of the atmosphere and oceans. Tremsbüttel Castle, Germany, 15-17 September 2010. Invited.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard. Mixing and secondary circulation in stratified oscillating boundary layers near sloping topography. Oral presentation. PPNW Workshop 2010, Reyjkjavik, Iceland, 28 June - 1 July 2010.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard. Diapycnal transport and mixing efficiency in stratified oscillating boundary layers near sloping topography. Oral presentation, EGU General Assembly 2010, Vienna, Austria, 02-07 May 2010.
van der Lee, and L. Umlauf. Observation of interior and boundary-layer mixing processes due to near-inertial waves in a stratified basin without tides. Poster Presentation.EGU General Assembly 2010, Vienna, Austria, 02-07 May 2010. Young Scientist Oustanding Poster Award.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, R. Hofmeister, V. Mohrholz, H. Burchard. The effect of rotation on gravity current entrainment. MOCA-09, IAPSO session on Ocean Mixing, Montreal, Canada, 19-24 July 2009. Invited.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, R. Hofmeister, H. Burchard. Does rotation affect entrainment in buoyancy-driven flows? Gordon Research Conference on Coastal Ocean Circulation, Colby-Sawyer College, New London, NH, USA, 07-12 June 2009. Invited.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, V. Mohrholz, H. Burchard. Boundary layer effects in topographically constrained bottom gravity currents. Mini-Symposium "Ocean Bottom and Surface Boundary Layers", WHOI, Woods Hole, USA, 09-13 July 2007. Invited.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, V. Mohrholz, H. Burchard. Transverse Structure of Turbulence and Dynamics of Rotating Gravity Currents in a Channel. 39th International Liege Colloquium on Ocean Dynamics "Turbulence Re-Revisited". Liege, Belgium, 07-11 May 2007. Invited.
Umlauf, L., V. Mohrholz, F. Janssen, H. Burchard, L. Arneborg. Turbulence and current structure in dense gravity currents. Conference on Coastal and Shelf Seas. Bangor, UK, 10-12 April 2006. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, H. Burchard. Transverse secondary circulation in dense gravity currents: Implications for entrainment and transport. Ocean Sciences Meeting, Honolulu, USA, 20-24 February 2006. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L., L. Arneborg, H. Burchard. One-point modeling of turbulence in stable stratified interfaces. Internal waves, Turbulence, and Shelf Seas Workshop, University of Bangor, UK, 9-11 November 2005. Invited.
Umlauf, L., Explicit algebraic second-order modelling of buoyancy-affected entrainment. Interdisciplinary Aspects of Turbulence. Workshop of the Max Plank Society for Astrophysics. Tegernsee, Germany. 18-22 April 2005. Invited.
Umlauf, L., and U. Lemmin. Inter-basin exchange and mixing in a large lake. The role of long internal waves. PECS conference. Merida, Mexico. 19-22 October 2004. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L. Stably stratified turbulent flow with uniform horizontal shear – physics and modelling. EGS-AGU-EUG Joint Assembly. Nice, France. 6-11 April 2003. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L. Inter-basin exchange due to long internal waves. Jour fixe SFB 454, University of Constance, Germany 29. November 2004. Invited.
Umlauf, L., and H. Burchard, A generic length-scale equation for second-order turbulence models of geophysical boundary layers, Geophysical Research Abstracts, 27th General Assembly of the European Geophysical Society, ISSN 1029-7006, 4, 2002. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L., and K. Jöhnk, Modelling the oxygen stratification of Lake Ammer, Estonian Marine Institute, Report 10, ISSN 1406-023 X, 84-91, Tallin (Estonia), 1999. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L., A comparison of different turbulent closure schemes for mixing processes in lakes, Abstracts of the 3rd Vereshchagin Baikal Conference, Limnological Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Science, Irkutsk, Russia, 2000. Oral presentation.
Umlauf, L., Comparing two topography-following primitive equation models for lake circulation, UFZ-Berich Nr. 23, 3rd Workshop on Physical Processes in Natural Waters, Magdeburg, Germany, ISSN 0948-9452, 46-50, 1998. Oral presentation.

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