Det Sample Clauses
Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, as advised by ▇▇▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, met with the grievor on December 12, 2000 and told him he was going to be transferred out of the MSU. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ also said that he made notes of their discussion, “on a steno pad”, after their talk. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ testified that the grievor, “Became angry and heated, he demanded to know why. I advised him about [his discussion with Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇] concerning problems in the Unit and incidents I’d been involved in with him previously, expense sheets, swaying the other officers, [incidents] that were not documented. I advised him that it was a decision made by management to have him removed from the Unit. He wanted additional reasons. I told him there were none other than those I had relayed. He demanded to know if there had been problems since I had spoken to him and I advised that none came to mind in the last few months. He said, ‘Am I disruptive?’ I said yes. He said there was a time when everyone was coming to him. I asked if I was disruptive and he said ‘no’. [The grievor] suggested I should have more answers and if I didn’t, I should have. I advised him that complaints about his behaviour had apparently made their way to the Deputy Chief’s office and Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had advised he wanted no disruptive behaviour in [the Unit], that there appeared to be two bosses on one team and there should only be one. He stated that this was not over, that we’re going to have to answer to this, it was going to get dirty and things were going to come out.” After this discussion, the grievor had approached Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and said that, “He wanted to maintain a workable environment and if anything had to be done I could count on him.” The grievor recalled his meeting with Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 12, 2000. “He told me I was going to be moved because of my disruptive behaviour. I said what? He said I’d likely be transferred in January. I asked what disruptive behaviour. He said he’d provide no details because I’d put a complaint against him [and] if I wanted to search, I could go to D/Sgt. Ground or Inspr. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to get answers. He said I’d be wasting my time, the decision had been made on the third floor and it came from the Deputy Chief. I continued to ask questions of him learn where, how, who, the notion that I became disruptive. He provided no information and said I won’t [for] fear of a complaint. He said he had nothing to do with it, he did not like it, that he believed in graduated discipline. ...
Det. Doogs saw the extended cab F-150 (from a prior buy) parked behind the residence. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇ also recognized ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ standing near the pickup. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ identified the house as the residence of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ girlfriend “April,” and told ▇▇▇▇▇ that they were waiting on the arrival of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’ new source, “▇▇▇▇.” While they were waiting, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ made a call on his cellular telephone to “▇▇▇▇,” and ▇▇▇▇▇ could see that the name displayed on ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’ phone was “▇▇▇▇.” ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ then itroduced Doogs to the dark- skinned male (▇▇▇▇▇▇) from “Buy B,” and told Doogs that he (▇▇▇▇▇▇) “goes everywhere the shit goes” so that nothing gets stolen. After a white vehicle pulled up in front of the residence, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ stated, “There’s my boy,” and took $1400 in prerecorded funds from Doogs. He then introduced ▇▇▇▇▇ to two males who had arrived in the white vehicle, calling them “▇▇▇▇” and “▇▇▇▇.” While passing a meth pipe around and smoking it with ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and “▇▇▇▇”, “▇▇▇▇” (later identified as ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇) said that his “guy” (supplier) was on the way. After speaking with this party on the phone, “▇▇▇▇” 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. ▇▇▇▇▇ picked one, which ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 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 ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ from a photo spread as “▇▇▇▇.” On June 29, 2011, the JCDTF CI positively identified ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ from photo spreads. The CI also admitted having purchased meth from ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on seven or eight occasions over a four or five month period. He stated that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ got meth from ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ , and that he had seen ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ exchange meth and money on several occasions. He identified ▇▇▇▇▇▇ as “Chewie,” ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ driver, and said that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ often rode with ▇▇▇▇▇▇ becasue he had a valid driver’s license. (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not have a license because of several prior DWI offenses.)
Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not know why Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Sgt. ▇▇▇▇▇ included a paragraph asking for a no-knock entry at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. Based on the facts that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew about ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and her apartment, she did not believe that a no-knock warrant was necessary. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not ever hear anyone from SWAT instruct Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ or anyone else to seek a no- knock warrant at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ home. • On March 12, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ took five warrants to Judge ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ chose which judge to go to. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ had previously heard Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ make comments suggesting that he believed that Judge Shaw would not closely scrutinize his warrants. • On the evening of March 12, 2020, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and other PBI officers met before the briefing for officers executing the search warrants. At that meeting, she learned for the first time that Sgt. ▇▇▇▇▇ wanted officers to knock and announce their presence at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ residence, even though the warrant was sworn out as a no-knock. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ observed that ▇▇▇▇▇ looked very nervous during this meeting. • After the shooting, criminal investigators with LMPD’s Public Integrity Unit asked Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ to submit an “investigative letter” that documented the information they found in their investigation. By this time, Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had been killed at Springfield Drive, and that the Springfield Drive search warrant affidavit that Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ wrote and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reviewed would be closely scrutinized. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ sent Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ a draft of the investigative letter on April 11, 2020. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that the letter contained false information, including repetition of the claim that Sgt. ▇.▇. had verified through Postal Inspectors that ▇.▇. received packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that Sgt. ▇.▇. told Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ there was no evidence of ▇.▇. receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ apartment. (Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ would learn far later that, at the time, it was not even possible for Sgt. ▇.▇. to get from postal inspectors the exact sort of package information Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ mentioned in his affidavit). But Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had already included the false claim in the warrant affidavit, so Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ reasserted it in the investigative letter. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ never mentioned to Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ that, in the prior few days, he had talked to Sgt. ▇.▇. and two Shively Police Department officers – all of whom had told him, again, that there w...
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. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ described his above comments as, “Incorporating some positive remarks but [there is] a hidden message” in them, apparently in regard to the grievor needing to be a good example for the junior members of the team. He said that he discussed this evaluation with the grievor and that “he didn’t have any disagreement.” He did not have a discussion with the grievor in order to confirm if he understood that there was a hidden message in it; “No, basically it was what I wanted him to do in regard to the junior members. I did not tell him the hidden message was inside.”
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.
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?”
Det. Kit ---------- * The information omitted is confidential and has been filed separately with the Commission pursuant to Rule 406. Seq # BM Group Name 1803 * DIG DNA Sequencing Kit 1890 * Genius 4 RNA Labeling Kit 1976 * Genius 5 End Labeling Set 5000 * MULTI-COLOR DNA DETECTION SET 5001 * ET-Assay Kit * ____________________________________________ 5028 * Biotin High Prime 5027 * Fluor High Prime 1951 * Actin RNA probe-DIG labeled 5006 * HUMAN CHROMOSOME,ALL,PROB,DIG * 5007 * Human Chr. Y, dig 5008 * Human Chr Y, flu 5009 * Human chr. 1, dig 5010 * Human chr. 1, flu 5011 * Human chr. ______, flu 5014 * PCR DIG labelling mix 5015 * DIG labeled control DNA 5016 * DIG labeled control RNA 5017 * DIG labeled control oligo 5018 * S. cerevisiae chr. probe, dig ---------- * The information omitted is confidential and has been filed separately with the Commission pursuant to Rule 406.
Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew from her training and experience that this information cut against their assumption that ▇.▇. kept drugs or drug proceeds at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ home. Det. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ knew that, because the claim in the Springfield Drive warrant affidavit that ▇.▇. was receiving packages at ▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ home was crucial to showing there was probable cause, officers had a duty to disclose to the court that they had received the contrary information from Sgt.
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.