“The USHCC applauds Group O for their commitment to helping grow tomorrow’s business leaders,” said USHCC President & CEO Javier Palomarez. “These scholarships will allow young people to attain higher education – placing them one step closer to fulfilling their dreams…” Group O, recognized among the Top 5 Latino-owned business in the US, has made a $50,000 commitment to award graduate level students scholarships for the next five years. “Our philosophy is that everyone wins when people are given an opportunity to show what they can do,” said Gregg Ontiveros, Group O CEO. “The next generation of Hispanic business leaders will need to be prepared to lead and compete on a global level – and we’re excited to partner with USHCC to help make that happen.” Marcus Arroyo, a MBA student at the University of Notre Dame was awarded the $10,000 scholarship. After graduating from the US Naval Academy, Arroyo served in the United States Navy for seven years. Arroyo has overseas in Japan and at a joint service IT communications facility in Germany. Upon completion of his degree, Arroyo plans to pursue a career in technology consulting. About Group O Group O is a diversified business process outsourcing provider specializing in marketing services, business analytics, supply chain operations and strategic packaging solutions. A Corporate Plus member of the National Minority Supplier Development Council (nmsdc.org), Group O is an NMSDC National Minority Supplier of the Year honoree and is recognized as a Top 5 Latino-owned Business by the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Headquartered in Milan, IL, Group O is one of the largest Hispanic-owned companies in the United States and employs more than 1,500. To learn more, visit www.GroupO.com.
UNITED STATES v. BAHR
He would talk into the night, he said. He would get up as early as necessary the next day. According to a State Department officials account of the negotiations, which began Thursday evening and ended Saturday afternoon with a framework accord to secure and eliminate Syrias chemical weapons, it was a deal that almost did not happen. In the end, the deal was written entirely by the U.S. side. The Russians agreed to it in an impromptu poolside conversation between Kerry, Lavrov and their deputies, who dragged over chairs to join them. Kerry made final edits to the draft on an iPad in his hotel room. The version of events offered Sunday by the senior State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door conversations, was both riveting and self-serving. Russian officials offered no recounting of their own, except to emphasize that the deal was their idea, discussed in general terms over the past year but not seriously addressed until they proposed it last week. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who had no representative in Geneva, was similarly closemouthed. In an interview with RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency, Syrian National Reconciliation Minister Ali Haidar said the agreement would help Syrians come out of the crisis and had prevented the war against Syria by having removed a pretext for those who wanted to unleash it. In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry refused to comment on the course of the Geneva talks, but the newspaper Kommersant reported that the Russian delegation was unsure until almost the end whether the United States would accept international control of Syrias chemical weapons. If Kerry had balked, the effort would likely have collapsed.
A. Treatment Disclosures We make clear now that the use of unconstitutionally compelled statements to determine a sentence in a later, unrelated criminal proceeding is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Fifth Amendment’s protections extend to the sentencing phase of a criminal case. Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 32728 (1999). We have recognized that those protections also extend to separate criminal proceedings. United States v. Saechao, 418 F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir.2005). Thus, in accord with this court’s precedent, we hold that the district court’s consideration of the treatment disclosures violated Bahr’s Fifth Amendment rights. Although Bahr did not assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at the time of the disclosures, that right is self-executing where its assertion is penalized so as to foreclose a free choice. Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S.