濮阳东方看男科技术很专业濮阳东方男科口碑非常好,濮阳东方医院妇科看病贵不贵,濮阳东方收费非常低,濮阳东方妇科医院值得信赖,濮阳东方医院看妇科病价格透明,濮阳东方医院男科割包皮手术值得信任,濮阳东方男科医院割包皮手术好不好

SAN CLEMENTE ISLAND, Calif. (KGTV) -- The two soldiers killed in an aircraft accident on San Clemente Island have been identified, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command said Saturday.According to the news release, 33-year-old Staff Sgt. Vincent P. Marketta of New Jersey and 22-year-old Sgt. Taylor M. Shelton of San Bernardino died on August 27 during an aviation training mishap.Marketta enlisted in the Army in 2011 as a 15T UH-60 Black Hawk Repairer and was assigned to the 160th Special Operations Regiment. While assigned to the unit, Marketta deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He also deployed multiple times to Iraq for Operation Inherent Resolve, according to the Army.Shelton enlisted in the Army in 2016 also as a 15T UH-60 Black Hawk Repairer and was assigned to the same unit as Marketta. During his service, Shelton deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.“The loss of Staff Sgt. Marketta and Sgt. Shelton has left a scar in this Regiment that will never completely heal,” said Col. Andrew R. Graham, commander of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne).“Their level of dedication to the 160th SOAR (A) and their exemplary service in the Army is the embodiment of what it means to be a Night Stalker and a Soldier. Our priority now is to ensure the Families of our fallen warriors receive our complete support as we work through this tragedy together. We ask that you keep Staff Sgt. Marketta, Sgt. Shelton, their Families and fellow Night Stalkers in your thoughts and prayers.”The incident comes just weeks after nine servicemembers, eight Marines and one sailor, were killed in an amphibious assault vehicle training accident off the coast of San Clemente Island. 1766

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A convicted sex offender will be released from a state hospital and placed at a sheriff's facility in Jacumba Hot Springs, where he will continue treatment in a conditional release program, a San Diego judge ruled Monday. Alan Earl James, 56, was convicted in 1981 and 1986 of numerous sex-related felonies involving several minor victims -- who included younger family members -- and sentenced to 28 years in state prison. James, who is classified as a ``sexually violent predator,'' was committed to Coalinga State Hospital, where he was undergoing treatment ``for an indeterminate term'' until he petitioned for a monitored conditional release last summer, prosecutors said. By April 25, James will be placed at 45612 Old Highway 80 in Jacumba Hot Springs. RELATED: San Diego County Supervisor asks state to look into placement of sexually violent predatorsPlacement at the facility was proposed by the California Department of State Hospitals. San Diego County Superior Court Judge Albert Harutunian -- who recommended James' integration into the conditional release program last fall based upon the evaluation of psychiatric experts -- ruled that the Jacumba Hot Springs facility meets the criteria for placement. James' impending release was met with opposition last week during another hearing in Harutunian's courtroom, which drew a crowd that included his former victims, county Supervisor Dianne Jacob and members of the community. Harutunian told attendees that he understood their opposition to James' release, but said citizens would be better suited directing their concerns towards the legislature, which determines sentencing guidelines and penalties for offenders. RELATED: Hearing held to determine placement of convicted 'sexually violent predator' in San DiegoRobert N., who now lives on the East Coast, said he flew 3,000 miles to make his voice heard regarding James' release. He said James held a butterknife to his neck and threatened to kill him if he told anyone about the abuse, which happened to him and his siblings more than 30 years ago. ``My biggest fear is that this time, he'll end up killing a kid,'' he said. ``I understand that he's going to be monitored and all that, but eventually, there's going to come to a point where someone's going to turn their head or something and not be paying attention and that's where he's going to end up striking.'' Robert N.'s sister, who went by L.N. while speaking to the court, said James assaulted her when she was 4 years old, and urged Harutunian to have James placed in a facility apart from communities where children and families live. RELATED: Dianne Jacob slams proposed placement of predator: 'He has no place in our community'``I feel he will re-offend given the opportunity,'' she said. Following his conviction and release for abuse committed against her and her siblings, L.N. said James assaulted another girl and was convicted again. ``I understand he has to be released. However, he just does not need to be in the community of San Diego,'' she said. ``I no longer live in San Diego. However, I still have family here, family that are children, as well as adults, and will all be impacted by this. I just fear that he will hurt another child and I don't want that to ever happen again.'' RELATED: San Diego's newsmakers: Supervisor Dianne JacobJacob, whose district includes Jacumba Hot Springs, said the rural communities of eastern San Diego County have experienced ``an over-concentration'' of sexually violent predator placements and have become ``easy pickins'' for the placement of sex offenders. According to Jacob, nine sexually violent predators have been placed in Jacumba Hot Springs, Campo and Boulevard. ``There are not the resources, there are not the services out there (in the East County) in order to support the ongoing treatment of sexually violent predators, yet the state has chosen to place nine of these in these communities anyway, and I believe it's wrong and enough is enough,'' Jacob said.Editors note: This story has been corrected to show that the placement of Alan James was the responsibility of the California Department of State Hospitals, not the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. 4237

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) — California will require people to wear face coverings in most indoor settings and outdoors when physical distancing isn't possible.Gov. Gavin Newsom had previously allowed counties to set their own requirements for facial coverings to slow the spread of the coronavirus. San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco already have face-covering mandates in effect. "Simply put, we are seeing too many people with faces uncovered – putting at risk the real progress we have made in fighting the disease," Newsom said. "California’s strategy to restart the economy and get people back to work will only be successful if people act safely and follow health recommendations. That means wearing a face covering, washing your hands, and practicing physical distancing."RELATED: New UCSD study: Wearing masks significantly curbs spread of COVID-19California's cloth face covering mandate includes situations like:While outdoors in public spaces when maintaining a physical distance of six feet from persons who are not members of the same household or residence is not feasible.Inside of, or in line to enter, any indoor public space;Obtaining services from the healthcare sector in settings including, but not limited to, a hospital, pharmacy, medical clinic, laboratory, physician or dental office, veterinary clinic, or blood bank;Waiting for or riding on public transportation or paratransit or while in a taxi, private car service, or ride-sharing vehicle;Engaged in work, whether at the workplace or performing work off-site, when:Interacting in-person with any member of the public;Working in any space visited by members of the public, regardless of whether anyone from the public is present at the time;Working in any space where food is prepared or packaged for sale or distribution to others;Working in or walking through common areas, such as hallways, stairways, elevators, and parking facilities;In any room or enclosed area where other people (except for members of the person’s own household or residence) are present when unable to physically distance.Driving or operating any public transportation or paratransit vehicle, taxi, or private car service or ride-sharing vehicle when passengers are present. When no passengers are present, face coverings are strongly recommended.RELATED: San Diego County exceeds community outbreak limit, forcing pause on reopeningsThe state's order exempts:Children under 2 years old; Individuals with medical, mental health or developmental disability that prevents wearing a face covering;Persons who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication;Persons for whom wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines.Persons who are obtaining a service involving the nose or face for which temporary removal of the face covering is necessary to perform the service;Persons who are seated at a restaurant or other establishment that offers food or beverage service, while they are eating or drinking, provided that they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household or residence;Persons who are engaged in outdoor work or recreation such as swimming, walking, hiking, bicycling, or running, when alone or with household members, and when they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet from others;Persons who are incarcerated. Prisons and jails, as part of their mitigation plans, will have specific guidance on the wearing of face coverings of masks for both inmates and staff.As of Wednesday, California reported 157,015 coronavirus cases and more than 5,200 deaths from the virus.RELATED: Some San Diegans push for end of San Diego County face mask requirement 3926

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- The California Assembly has voted to ban the manufacture and sale of new fur products.Animal welfare groups have rallied around the bill, arguing the fur industry is inhumane and pointing to alternatives like faux fur.But opponents of the bill have countered that the proposed law would devastate fur retailers and manufacturers.Some California cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley, have already passed ordinances banning the sale of fur.The New York City council has also considered banning fur sales in America's biggest city.The bill would not include used fur products or furs used for traditional purposes. Leather, cowhide and shearling would be exempt, too.The measure, Assembly Bill 44, now goes to the state Senate. 782

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A drunken driver who went the wrong way and crashed head-on into another car in 4S Ranch, killing the other driver, was convicted Wednesday of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and DUI causing injury.Jurors deadlocked on a second-degree murder count against Alexandria Bayne, but will return Thursday to resume deliberations in hopes of reaching a consensus. The 37-year-old defendant was charged with murder due to two previous DUI convictions from 2005 and 2008.The panel deliberated two days before returning the vehicular manslaughter and DUI verdicts, and acquitted Bayne of four child endangerment counts involving allegations that she drove drunk earlier in the day while her children were riding in her minivan.RELATED: Fatal 4S Ranch DUI suspect breaks down in tears when husband testifies in hearingOn Thursday, the jury will hear a read-back of closing arguments and receive clarifications on the legal definitions of certain terms such as "intentionally" and "deliberately," which were cited as a source of contention in jury notes submitted to San Diego County Superior Court Judge Robert F. O'Neill.Sarita Shakya, a 38-year-old Scripps Mercy Hospital nurse, was heading home from work the afternoon of Dec. 17, 2016, on Camino Del Norte when her car was struck head-on by the defendant's vehicle.Deputy District Attorney Cally Bright told jurors in her opening statement that Bayne had been drinking alcoholic beverages throughout the day, starting that morning. The defendant and her attorney conceded she'd been drinking but was not drunk when she was behind the wheel. Though she testified that she had eight drinks throughout that day, she told the jury she simply made a mistake when she turned into opposing traffic lanes on Camino Del Norte.RELATED: Tears at preliminary hearing in suspected DUI fatal crashBayne's attorney, Michelle Hunsaker, contended that Bayne made that mistake because she was distracted by family issues, as well as her cell phone.Prosecutors said her blood alcohol content was measured at between .32 and .33% -- the legal limit is .08% -- after the crash.Hunsaker disputed that testing result, saying Bayne's alcohol consumption "just doesn't line up" with the .33% BAC alleged by the prosecution. She also said Bayne had encountered several people throughout the day and did not appear intoxicated.RELATED: Woman killed by suspected drunk driver in 4S Ranch identified"We are not discounting the magnitude of the loss of Ms. Shakya and take full responsibility for that collision. But distraction does not equal murder," Hunsaker said.Shakya's husband, Peter Chen, testified that his wife typically returned home sometime after midnight each night following her shift at the hospital. When she didn't show up, he called her supervisor, who didn't know why Shakya might be late.Hours later, he received the bad news."I couldn't believe what had happened," Chen said, calling it "the worst day of my life." 2990