中山脱肛手术的价格是多少(中山肛门息肉是怎么回事) (今日更新中)

SAN DIEGO — The banner atop North Park’s Rudford’s Restaurant reads, “Stand up small business.”The word defy is written just below.Defy is exactly what father-and-son team Jeff and Nicholas Kacha planned to do over the weekend - until the community got word. They planned to continue serving food indoors even though the county on Saturday moved into the state’s most strict tier of coronavirus restrictions - the purple tier. But they were faced with threats of broken windows, picketing and lost customers.“It's been a nightmare that just keeps getting worse,” Jeff Kacha said.Redfords, which is not serving indoors, laid off 10 staffers at the news. Sales are down 40 percent. And the 60 turkeys they ordered for Thanksgiving may now not sell.Gov. Newsom says he remains concerned over the recent increase in the rate of coronavirus cases. The state on Monday moved 41 of the state's 58 counties into the purple tier.And even restaurants that look full outside say it hurts. At Puesto in La Jolla, the patio was busy all weekend, but co-founder Eric Adler wasn't celebrating“It looked full and it was full but that still translates to reduced revenue of around 30 percent for us,” he said.But other businesses weren't hit as hard.Point Loma Sports Club already had the bulk of its equipment outside under tents from earlier in the outbreak. When the county entered the purple tier, general manager Bryan Welch moved even more out for the members.“We may do this again two more times, four more times,” he said. "We're trying not to be shocked by it, we're just trying to adapt, and if you can adapt, we just feel like we can thrive.”The challenges, however, could grow as the weather cools into the winter months. 1724

SAN DIEGO (AP) — An appeals court on Wednesday upheld a freeze on Pentagon money to build a border wall with Mexico, casting doubt on President Donald Trump's ability to make good on a signature campaign promise before the 2020 election.A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with a lower court ruling that prevented the government from tapping Defense Department counterdrug money to build high-priority sections of wall in Arizona and New Mexico.The decision is a setback for Trump's ambitious plans. He ended a 35-day government shutdown in February after Congress gave him far less than he wanted. He then declared a national emergency that the White House said would free billions of dollars from the Pentagon.The case may still be considered, but the administration cannot build during the legal challenge.A freeze imposed by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of Oakland in May prevented work on two Pentagon-funded wall contracts — one spanning 46 miles (74 kilometers) in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles (8 kilometers) in Yuma, Arizona.While the order applied only to those first-in-line projects, Gilliam made clear that he felt the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups were likely to prevail at trial in their argument that the president was ignoring Congress' wishes by diverting Defense Department money."Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures — even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important — is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one," the judge wrote.Gilliam went a step further Friday by ruling definitively that the administration couldn't use Pentagon counterdrug money for the two projects covered in his May order or to replace 63 miles (101 kilometers) in the Border Patrol's Tucson, Arizona, sector and 15 miles (24 kilometers) in its El Centro, California, sector.Trump immediately vowed to appeal.At stake is billions of dollars that would allow Trump to make progress on a major 2016 campaign promise heading into his race for a second term.Trump declared a national emergency after losing a fight with the Democratic-led House that led to the 35-day shutdown. Congress agreed to spend nearly .4 billion on barriers in Texas' Rio Grande Valley, the busiest corridor for illegal crossings, which was well below the .7 billion the president requested.Trump grudgingly accepted the money but declared the emergency to siphon money from other government accounts, finding up to .1 billion for wall construction. The money includes .6 billion from military construction funds, .5 billion from Defense Department counterdrug activities and 0 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture fund.Acting Defense Secretary Mark Esper has yet to approve transferring the military construction funds. The Treasury Department funds have so far survived legal challenges.The president's adversaries say the emergency declaration was an illegal attempt to ignore Congress. The ACLU sued on behalf of the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition.The administration said the U.S. needed emergency protection to fight drug smuggling. Its arguments did not mention illegal immigration or unprecedented numbers of Central American families seeking asylum at the U.S. border, which have dominated public attention in recent months.Justice Department attorneys argued that the freeze on Pentagon funds showed a "fundamental misunderstanding of the federal appropriations process.""The real separation-of-powers concern is the district court's intrusion into the budgeting process," they wrote.The two sides argued before a three-judge panel in San Francisco on June 20, made up of Barack Obama appointee Michelle Friedland and George W. Bush appointees N. Randy Smith and Richard Clifton.The administration has awarded .8 billion in contracts for barriers covering 247 miles (390 kilometers), with all but 17 miles (27 kilometers) of that to replace existing barriers not expand coverage. It is preparing for a flurry of construction that the president is already celebrating at campaign-style rallies.Trump inherited barriers spanning 654 miles (1,046 kilometers), or about one-third of the border with Mexico. Of the miles covered under Trump-awarded contracts, more than half is with Pentagon money.The Army Corps of Engineers recently announced several large Pentagon-funded contacts.SLSCO Ltd. of Galveston, Texas, won a 9 million award to replace the New Mexico barrier. Southwest Valley Constructors of Albuquerque, New Mexico, won a 6 million award for the work in Tucson. Barnard Construction Co. of Bozeman, Montana, won a 1.8 million contract to replace barrier in Yuma and El Centro. 4877

SAN DIEGO — (KGTV) -- Democrat Sara Jacobs continues to hold a double-digit lead over Democrat Georgette Gomez in the race for California's 53rd Congressional District, according to a new scientific poll.The ABC-10News Union-Tribune scientific poll shows Jacobs leading Gomez 40 percent to 27 percent, with 33 percent still undecided. The two Democrats are vying to replace Susan Davis, who is retiring in the central and south San Diego district after nearly 20 years. The poll shows Jacobs, granddaughter of Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs, leading in support from those who describe themselves as liberal, moderate, conservative, and very conservative. Gomez, currently the City Council president, is generating most of her support from voters who describe themselves as very liberal."With only two weeks left to go until the election, Georgette Gomez is running out of time to close the gap on Sara Jacobs," said Thad Kousser, a political scientist at UC San Diego.Kousser said the closer the election gets, the harder it will be for Gomez to catch up, because of the increase in mail-in ballots and early voting. The poll shows 26 percent of the respondents already sent in their ballots. Kousser said, however, that Jacobs still has not reached the 50 percent support threshold, leaving the door open for Gomez, who will have to convince most of the undecideds to support her. "She hasn't been making substantial progress at the same time that she's being hugely outspent on the airwaves by Sara Jacobs," he said. Federal Election data shows Jacobs outspent Gomez nearly 5 to 1 through Sept. 30.In an interview, Jacobs said she would not rest on polling."I worked on the 2016 presidential campaign so I love seeing good polls but I will continue working very hard for every last vote," she said. "It really comes down to each individual vote making that decision and we're going to try to talk to as many as we can over the next 14 days."Gomez was attending a City Council meeting and not available for an interview Tuesday. However, campaign spokesman Dan Rottenstreich said the campaign was operating at full speed, and noted that Gomez gained some ground from the prior ABC-10 Union Tribune poll in September. That version showed Jacobs leading 38 percent to 24 percent, with 38 percent undecided. "The election is far from over, and we're going to continue to mobilize our coalition," Rottenstreich said. "We're gaining ground. Voters are just now learning more and more about Georgette's story, her proven record and her bold agenda in Congress."SurveyUSA polled 511 likely voters with a 5.6 percent margin of error. 2634

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A 20-year-old man who pleaded guilty to a voluntary manslaughter charge for last year's fatal beating of a 56-year-old man near a pedestrian bridge behind Petco Park was sentenced Friday to six years in state prison.Dominick Wells admitted his role in the Nov. 18, 2018, beating of Edward Starlard, who was left comatose as a result of the attack by Wells and a group of juveniles.Three of the juveniles involved were also charged in juvenile court, with at least two of the minors pleading guilty so far, according to prosecutors.Witnesses said Starlard had been fighting with a group of young people the afternoon of Nov. 18 when he was thrown down and beaten unconscious, suffering injuries that included fractures to his face and ribs. When witnesses started yelling at the attackers to stop, they fled east on Imperial Avenue, police said.Starlard was placed on life support and never regained consciousness. He died Dec. 3 at Scripps Mercy Hospital.A cell phone video recorded by a bystander captures Starlard, Wells and the juveniles exchanging words, none of which can be heard in the video. At some point, both men grab objects to seemingly defend themselves. Wells picks up a broomstick, while Starlard lifts a bicycle over his head.Starland later tosses the bike to the ground, and is then knocked down to the sidewalk by Wells and the juveniles, who begin punching and kicking him.A medical examiner testified that Starlard's death was the result of a heart attack, which could have been caused by stress or trauma from the fight.Prosecutor Mary Loeb asked San Diego County Superior Court Judge Amalia L. Meza to impose the maximum possible term of 11 years, stating that Wells had multiple opportunities to withdraw from the altercation, but chose instead to attack Starlard even after he put the bike down, then beat him while he was helpless on the ground.She also said that while both men bore responsibility for their roles in the argument, Wells landed the first blow, and only stopped when bystanders intervened."There was no indication that this was going to stop except for people running across the street, seeing what was happening and yelling at the defendant and his friends to stop," Loeb said, which highlighted "the viciousness of this attack."Wells' attorney, Stewart Dadmun, said his client rightfully defended himself against Starlard, who was attacking him, but was guilty of manslaughter for responding with excessive force.Dadmun said the altercation was sparked by Starlard making a lewd comment toward one of Wells' friends, a 14-year-old girl, then threatened to attack Wells and the teens.The attorney said that while the prosecutor noted Wells could have walked away, "It's also worth pointing out that a 56-year-old man could have walked away."Dadmun also noted Wells' young age and lack of prior criminal record in asking for a three-year prison term.Meza said she understood both men played a role in the fight, but said Wells responded with force that was "excessive, brutal and unnecessary when the victim was trying to retreat," and imposed the mid-term of six years.Wells was previously charged with murder in the attack, but that charge was dismissed when he entered his guilty plea in September. He was also previously charged with torture for beating Starlard after he'd been knocked to the ground, but a judge dismissed that count at Wells' preliminary hearing. 3437

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A grand jury indictment charging three San Diegans with conspiracy to commit fraud, grand theft, forgery and identity theft was unsealed Thursday, alleging the defendants defrauded more than 100 local Navy service members out of millions by selling the service members unnecessary life insurance policies.Paul Flanagan, 54; Ranjit Kalsi, 52; and Gregory Martin II, 49, are accused of selling 4,700 life insurance policies and annuity contracts to service members who already had life insurance through the Navy, otherwise known as Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.Prosecutors allege the defendants -- through their company, Go Navy Tax Service -- misrepresented what services the company was providing when they sold policies to the service members. Bank accounts were opened in the service members' names to make automatic payments toward the policies' premiums, though the victims believed they were signing up for a retirement savings account or other services, rather than life insurance policies.Flanagan, the company's owner, pleaded not guilty to nearly 70 felony counts at the downtown San Diego courthouse Thursday afternoon. Kalsi and Martin, who allegedly did the bulk of the sales out of the company's office -- a trailer located near the San Diego Naval Base on 32nd Street -- were arraigned Wednesday afternoon.The defendants face more than 20 years in prison if convicted of all counts, according to the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. Prosecutors allege the victims were defrauded out of around .8 million total.The company's website, www.gonavytaxservice.com, currently only provides a brief statement on its homepage, which reads, "Hello, we are currently unable to provide Tax Preparation Services this off-season. Sorry for the inconvenience. If you need anything else, please call us and leave a message. Someone will get back to you asap."Flanagan's attorney, Earll Pott, said outside court Thursday that the allegations against his client were "mystifying," as he alleged the service members should have been well aware through bank statements that their accounts were being accessed and why."If this was a fraud, it was a pretty short-lived fraud and it made no sense at all," Pott said. "Within two months, these guys were going to get statements that told them exactly what the product was that they had, and they had a clawback provision where they could come back and complain, and say `well, I didn't understand this' or 'I don't want this,' and the insurance company would have refunded the money."According to Pott, Flanagan was out of state during most of the time of the charged incidents and simply received and submitted the policy applications. But as to Kalsi and Martin, Pott said, "We don't have any reason to believe that the two agents involved did anything appropriate either."The attorney said, "The disturbing thing about this prosecution is the suggestion that the government's going to come in and second-guess whether or not you need these particular financial vehicles. There's nothing illegal about getting more insurance or having another investment vehicle that helps you feel more secure in their retirement."Kalsi’s attorney, Domenic Lombardo, had no comment at this time.Martin’s attorney, Jeremy Warren, tells 10News, “Mr. Martin has been aware of the investigation for some time and vigorously denies the allegations. He looks forward to defending himself in court.”The investigation into the alleged fraud began last year, on the basis of complaints sent to the Attorney General's office."The victims of this scam were young women and men serving our country who were essentially tricked into signing up for something they didn't need and couldn't afford." District Attorney Summer Stephan said. "Enlisted sailors were not given a chance as to whether they wanted a supplemental life insurance policy. That decision was made for them through corrupt and fraudulent methods."The defendants are due back in court July 17 for a readiness conference. 4048

来源：资阳报