FHB management in wheat and barley

Non-Peer Reviewe

The impact of nighttime intensivists on medical intensive care unit infection-related indicators

In 2013, a before-and-after intervention study was conducted to evaluate the effect 24-hour intensivist coverage on length of stay and rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, central-line associated blood stream infection, and ventilator-associated events. Intensivist coverage for 24 hours did not decrease length of stay or result in a decrease in any specific infection rate.Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(3):352–354</jats:p

Stop the Burnout: Enhancing Support Practices for Principals

Principals are essential for ensuring student success. Effective principals have a significant positive impact on student achievement, teacher effectiveness, a positive school culture and inclusive school climate. Increased demands of the role which include mounting managerial tasks and a lack of systems and centralized support for principals, is decreasing the focus on effective school improvement. Current research reveals an alarming trend regarding the absence of positive principal well-being and support structures. The River District School Board (RDSB; a pseudonym) requires a detailed change process and plan to improve this issue. This Problem of Practice (PoP) and Organizational Improvement Plan (OIP) seek to improve centralized supports for principals in order to improve the overall wellness of principals, reduce burnout and mitigate work intensification. A new Principal Well-being Model is proposed that frames the PoP with precision and will act as an overarching theoretical lens. Solutions to this issue are explored utilizing distributive and ethical leadership approaches. The Organizational Congruence Model of Nadler and Tushman (1989) is used to evaluate the change process in order to collaboratively guide principals, central office staff and senior administration in this change for improved principal support practices

The Law Court\u27s Unfinished Analysis in State v. Ali: Applying Padilla in Maine to Remove Procedural Barriers to Non-Citizens\u27 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

The outcome in State v. Ali exemplifies the procedural barriers that prevent a non-citizen of the United States from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim while subject to deportation as a result of a criminal conviction pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Fahad Ali, a non-citizen of the United States residing in Maine, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated trafficking of marijuana and was subsequently subject to deportation as a result of that conviction. Ali filed a motion for a new trial claiming that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, when his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his criminal conviction. Ali relied on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that defense counsel has a duty to inform the client of deportation consequences of a guilty plea. However, the Superior Court denied Ali’s motion and concluded that Padilla, which was decided after Ali’s conviction, did not apply retroactively. Additionally, the court held that Ali was informed of the deportation consequences when he entered his guilty plea. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, avoided the Padilla question and instead affirmed the denial of the motion on a procedural basis. The Law Court held that Ali improperly filed a motion for a new trial when the appropriate route to challenge the conviction was to bring a claim for post-conviction review, the “exclusive method of review” for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. As Justice Silver explained in the dissent, however, Ali would most likely be precluded from seeking post-conviction review based on the court’s prior decision in Ngo v. State, which held that a non-citizen awaiting deportation was not “restrained” under the post-conviction review statute. As a result, Ali would be left without an opportunity for judicial review. Furthermore, the dissent concluded that the court should address the application of Padilla in Maine, particularly its effect on the Ngo decision and also whether it applies retroactively. This Note analyzes the question that the Ali majority avoided answering – how Padilla should be applied in Maine, especially considering the Law Court’s past reluctance to decide this constitutional issue raised by non-citizens such as Ali. This Note begins in Part II with a brief overview of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act and how a non-citizen may raise a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel through the post-conviction review process in Maine. In Part III, this Note next examines the contrasting opinions of the majority and dissent in the Ali decision and specifically how the court’s decision and precedent will pose a challenge for Ali seeking post-conviction review in the future. Finally, in Part IV, this Note analyzes the imminent question that the Law Court will likely be required to decide in the future of how Padilla should be applied in Maine

Water Supply Withdrawals from South Carolina\u27s Resevoirs: A Comparison of Legal Schemes

2010 S.C. Water Resources Conference - Science and Policy Challenges for a Sustainable Futur

The Law Court\u27s Unfinished Analysis in State v. Ali: Applying Padilla in Maine to Remove Procedural Barriers to Non-Citizens\u27 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims

The outcome in State v. Ali exemplifies the procedural barriers that prevent a non-citizen of the United States from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim while subject to deportation as a result of a criminal conviction pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Fahad Ali, a non-citizen of the United States residing in Maine, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated trafficking of marijuana and was subsequently subject to deportation as a result of that conviction. Ali filed a motion for a new trial claiming that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, when his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his criminal conviction. Ali relied on the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that defense counsel has a duty to inform the client of deportation consequences of a guilty plea. However, the Superior Court denied Ali’s motion and concluded that Padilla, which was decided after Ali’s conviction, did not apply retroactively. Additionally, the court held that Ali was informed of the deportation consequences when he entered his guilty plea. On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, avoided the Padilla question and instead affirmed the denial of the motion on a procedural basis. The Law Court held that Ali improperly filed a motion for a new trial when the appropriate route to challenge the conviction was to bring a claim for post-conviction review, the “exclusive method of review” for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. As Justice Silver explained in the dissent, however, Ali would most likely be precluded from seeking post-conviction review based on the court’s prior decision in Ngo v. State, which held that a non-citizen awaiting deportation was not “restrained” under the post-conviction review statute. As a result, Ali would be left without an opportunity for judicial review. Furthermore, the dissent concluded that the court should address the application of Padilla in Maine, particularly its effect on the Ngo decision and also whether it applies retroactively. This Note analyzes the question that the Ali majority avoided answering – how Padilla should be applied in Maine, especially considering the Law Court’s past reluctance to decide this constitutional issue raised by non-citizens such as Ali. This Note begins in Part II with a brief overview of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act and how a non-citizen may raise a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel through the post-conviction review process in Maine. In Part III, this Note next examines the contrasting opinions of the majority and dissent in the Ali decision and specifically how the court’s decision and precedent will pose a challenge for Ali seeking post-conviction review in the future. Finally, in Part IV, this Note analyzes the imminent question that the Law Court will likely be required to decide in the future of how Padilla should be applied in Maine

The isodiametric problem with lattice-point constraints

In this paper, the isodiametric problem for centrally symmetric convex bodies in the Euclidean d-space R^d containing no interior non-zero point of a lattice L is studied. It is shown that the intersection of a suitable ball with the Dirichlet-Voronoi cell of 2L is extremal, i.e., it has minimum diameter among all bodies with the same volume. It is conjectured that these sets are the only extremal bodies, which is proved for all three dimensional and several prominent lattices.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, (v2) referee comments and suggestions incorporated, accepted in Monatshefte fuer Mathemati