Det. Doogs saw the extended cab F-150 (from the second buy) parked behind the residence. Det. Doogs also recognized Xxxx Xxxxxx (also from the second buy) standing near the pickup. Xxxxxxx identified the house as the residence of Xxxxxxxx’x girlfriend “April,” and told Xxxxx that they were waiting on the arrival of Xxxxxxx’ new source, “Xxxx.” While they were waiting, Xxxxxxx made a call on his cellular telephone to “Xxxx.” Xxxxxxx then itroduced Doogs to the dark-skinned male (Xxxxxx), and told Doogs that he (Xxxxxx) “goes everywhere the shit goes” so that nothing gets stolen. After a white vehicle pulled up in front of the residence, Xxxxxxx stated, “There’s my boy,” and took $1400 in prerecorded funds from Doogs. He then introduced Xxxxx to two males who had arrived in the white vehicle, calling them “Xxxx” and “Xxxx.” While passing a meth pipe around and smoking it with Xxxxxxx and “Xxxx”, “Xxxx” (later identified as Xxxxxxx) said that his “guy” (supplier) was on the way. After speaking with this party on the phone, “Xxxx” left the residence, returning a short time later with two plastic bags. He showed them both to Doogs, and told Doogs to pick the “zip” (ounce) he wanted. Xxxxx picked one, which Xxxxxxx then weighed on a scale. The drugs purchased on this occasion weighed about 28.6 grams, and field tested positive for methamphetamine. The transmissions from the transmitter were monitored and recorded. On June 14, 2011, detective Doogs postively identified Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx from a photo spread as “Xxxx.” On June 29, 2011, the JCDTF CI positively identified Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Xxxxxx from photo spreads. The CI also admitted having purchased meth from Xxxxxxxx on seven or eight occasions over a four or five month period. He stated that Xxxxxxxx got meth from Xxxxxxx , and that he had seen Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx exchange meth and money on several occasions. He identified Xxxxxx as “Chewie,” Xxxxxxxx’x driver, and said that Xxxxxxxx often rode with Xxxxxx xxxxxxx he had a valid driver’s license. (Xxxxxxxx did not have a license because of several prior DWI offenses.) On July 5, 2011, Detective Xxxxx, again working in an undercover capacity and wearing a transmitter, purchased approximately one ounce of methamphetamine from Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on East 23rd Street, Kansas City, Missouri. The drugs purchase on this occasion weighed about 28 grams, and field tested positive for methamphetamine. The transmissions from the transmitter were monitored and recorded.
Det. Xxxxxxxx knew that Det. Xxxxxx, who was better trained and far more experienced than she was, also knew that the affidavit had to include the negative information about packages. • Around March 10 or 11, 2020, Det. Xxxxxx gave Det. Xxxxxxxx a draft of the Springfield Drive warrant affidavit for her to review. Det. Xxxxxxxx saw that Det. Xxxxxx had added a paragraph claiming falsely that Det. Xxxxxx had “verified” from a Postal Inspector that X.X. was receiving packages at Xxxxxx’x address. Det. Xxxxxxxx knew from her conversation with Det. Xxxxxx that Sgt. X.X. had actually told Det. Xxxxxx the opposite. She also knew from conversations with Det. Xxxxxx that Det. Xxxxxx had never even talked to a Postal Inspector. As a result, Det. Xxxxxxxx recognized at the time that the claim Det. Xxxxxx made about packages in the Springfield Drive affidavit was false. Det. Xxxxxxxx also knew, based on her conversations with Det. Xxxxxx, that he knew it was false, too. Even though Det. Xxxxxxxx knew the claim about packages in the affidavit was false, she failed to change the statement or to object to it. Det. Xxxxxxxx had been ostracized early in her career for attempting to report a fellow officer’s use of excessive force, so she decided not to call Det. Xxxxxx out on this lie, as Det. Xxxxxx was the lead detective on the case. • Before Det. Xxxxxx finalized the Springfield Drive warrant affidavit, Det. Xxxxxxxx told Det. Xxxxxx that she was concerned that the draft affidavit did not have enough current information to connect Xxxxxx’x apartment to X.X.’s drug dealing. Specifically, she knew that information in the affidavit about X.X. making “frequent trips” to Xxxxxx’x home was from January 2020, at least 6 weeks before the warrant would be executed. To make the warrant appear fresher, Det. Xxxxxxxx added a paragraph stating that Det. Xxxxxx had “verified” from law enforcement databases that X.X. used Xxxxxx’x apartment as “his current home address.” Det. Xxxxxxxx and Det. Xxxxxx both knew at the time that this was misleading because X.X. did not, in fact, live at Xxxxxx’x apartment. Det. Xxxxxxxx knew that X.X. had not been seen at Xxxxxx’x apartment since January 2020. Det. Xxxxxxxx also knew that Det. Xxxxxx prepared another affidavit, to get a warrant to search a different apartment on Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Way, in which he stated that he “believes that [the address on] Xxxxx Xxxxxxx is the main residence for [X.X.].” Additionally, she knew that Det. Xxxxxx prepared anoth...
Det. PRED 'the' In German V1 and V2 clauses, particle verbs are spelled as separate words. In these contexts, the German ParGram LFG thus treats them in the same way as its English counterpart. In verb-final clauses and in headed VPs, however, particle verbs are usually spelled as single words. Compare, e.g., Er lud seine Kusine ein. ‘He invited his cousin.’ and Er wird seine Kusine einladen. ‘He will invite his cousin.’ The finite-state morphology currently used by the German ParGram LFG outputs analyses like the following for forms of particle verbs: xxxxxx xxx#xxxxx +X .00 .Xx .Past .Ind The xxxx xxxx indicates the boundary between the particle and the base verb and thus potentially disambiguates analyses involving a separable verb particle from analyses involving homophonous non-separable verb prefixes; however the entire lemma is still a single unit. As a result, the grammar must analyze spelled-together particle verbs as morphological objects, and the lexical information for the particle verb ein#laden must be listed both under the base verb lemma (as in the English ParGram LFG), e.g. laden, and under the particle verb lemma,
Det. Improves patient and customer perception of their care and the service they receive -Helps reduce anxiety, improving outcomes -Builds customer and employee loyalty -Ensures all service providers are delivering consistent empathy, concern and appreciation -Improves teamwork
Det. Acknowledge: knock before entering, acknowledge patient/person by name, acknowledge everyone in the room with eye contact, a smile, and a “hello”, take the initiative to make eye contact, smile, and say “hello” in the hallways -Introduce: Provide your name and role on the team, validate the name of the person, tell him/her if you have any special skills and how long you have been doing what you’re doing, manage up (talk about yourself, coworkers, departments or company in a positive way) -Duration: Say how long you will be working with the person, how long the delay will be, how long the process will take, how long the person will be on hold. -Explanation: Use words the patient/person will understand, say what you’re about to do before you do it and why, say what will happen and what to expect, always offer and opportunity to ask questions after you explain something -Thank you: Show appreciation, provide a positive closing, and ask what other questions the patient/person has, ask “what more can I do for you before you leave?” Example Script:
Det. Tronics hereby appoints Sales Representative, and Sales Representative hereby accepts, to represent Det-Tronics non- exclusively in promoting sales of Products and/or Field Services within the Sales Sector as a Non-Employee Sales Representative for Direct Sales Transactions and/or as a Distributor for Indirect Sales Transactions pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement (Products, Field Services, and Sales Sector are each as defined in Exhibit 2). This appointment does not include authorization to engage in Indirect Sales Transactions with any Third Party within the Sales Sector promoting sales of the Products to Customers over the internet. For Sales Intermediaries in the European Union, restriction to the Sales Sector shall apply only to active sales. Det-Tronics reserves the right to market and sell the Products and Field Services and other products and services of Det-Tronics directly to Customers and other sales intermediaries in the Sales Sector.
Det. Tronics agrees, but is not obligated, to consider amending this Agreement from time to time to include other products or services of Det-Tronics that Sales Representative identifies as having a strong likelihood of sales opportunities in the Sales Sector.
Det. Tronics shall be under no obligation to pay any Commission or any other form of compensation to Sales Representative in connection with any Indirect Sales Transaction.
Det. Tronics in its sole discretion determines that Sales Representative’s conduct or this Agreement violates or contravenes US law or applicable law in the Sales Sector;
Det. [Gen-n, Num-sg] er skote [Gen-u, Num-u] nokre elgar [Gen-m, Num-pl] (Gen-n, Num-sg) It is shot some elks In the approach followed here, only unvalued features must be valued/checked, so the inherent features of the associate DP need no checking. However, as shown in (23), the features of an associate DP are in principle capable of checking the unvalued features of the participle in Norwegian. Therefore, since the inherent features of det need no checking (by the same logic as the inherent features of the associate DP need no checking), det and the associate DP compete for valuing the participle when both are present. Therefore, both (24), with the participle valued by det, and (25) below, with the participle valued by the associate DP, should have been grammatical. However, (25) is ungrammatical, which must mean that det somehow has priority over the associate DP in cases where the two DPs compete for valuation of the participle.
