汕尾有名的中医看白癜风潮州白癜风治疗大概费用,汕头治疗白癜风专业的地方,潮州治白癜风哪里治得好,白癜风哪里可以检查 梅州,在汕头治疗白癜风哪家好,潮州治疗白癜风好方法,揭阳白癜风怎样治疗最好

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will reconsider life sentences for up to 4,000 nonviolent third-strike criminals by allowing them to seek parole under a ballot measure approved by voters two years ago, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday.The state will craft new regulations by January to include the repeat offenders in early release provisions. Gov. Jerry Brown also will not appeal a court ruling that the state is illegally excluding the nonviolent career criminals from parole under the 2016 ballot measure he championed to reduce the prison population and encourage rehabilitation.The state parole board estimates between 3,000 and 4,000 nonviolent third-strikers could be affected, said corrections department spokeswoman Vicky Waters, "but they would have to go through rigorous public safety screenings and a parole board hearing before any decision is made."RELATED: Ex-con, called poster?child for three-strikes law, sentenced to life in prisonIt's the second such loss for the Democratic governor, who leaves office days after the new rules are due. Another judge ruled in February that the state must consider earlier parole for potentially thousands of sex offenders. The administration is fighting that ruling, which undercuts repeated promises that Brown made to voters to exclude sex offenders from earlier release.Prosecutors are not surprised and warned throughout the Prop. 57 campaign that nonviolent third-strikers would unintentionally fall under the measure's constitutional amendment, said California District Attorneys Association spokeswoman Jennifer Jacobs."We expect the same exact thing to happen with regard to sex offenders," she said. "To fix this they're going to have to go back to the people for a vote, which can't even happen for another two years."RELATED: How some states are reducing the prison populationBrown will not appeal last month's ruling by a three-judge appellate panel in the Second Appellate District in a Los Angeles County case that third-strikers must be included under Proposition 57's constitutional amendment. It requires parole consideration for "any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense" regardless of enhancements under California's three strikes law."There is no question that the voters who approved Proposition 57 intended (inmates) serving Three Strikes indeterminate sentences to be eligible for early parole consideration," the appeals court ruled, adding that, "There is strong evidence the voters who approved Proposition 57 sought to provide relief to nonviolent offenders."Administration lawyers said in a filing in a separate related case that the state "is not seeking review" of the appeals court decision and "is in the process of drafting new emergency regulations in compliance" with the decision by Jan. 5.RELATED: Kim Kardashian makes trip to the White House in the name of criminal justice reformMichael Romano, director of the Stanford Three Strikes Project, called the administration's decision to comply "a big deal, a huge deal."Clients potentially affected by the new decision include inmates serving life terms for stealing a bicycle, possessing less than half a gram of methamphetamine, stealing two bottles of liquor or shoplifting shampoo, he said."It's a monumental decision. It's one of the biggest decisions on sentencing policy in the Brown administration," said Romano, whose project represented third-strike inmates in several appeals.The ruling doesn't guarantee any of the offenders will get out of jail. But it allows them to go before the parole board. Romano estimates 4,000 people will be eligible for parole.Nonviolent third-strikers are disproportionately black, disproportionately mentally ill and statistically among the least likely to commit additional crimes, said Romano, who has studied the issue.He cited corrections department data on more than 2,200 nonviolent, non-serious third strikers who were paroled under a 2012 ballot measure that allowed most inmates serving life terms for relatively minor third strikes to ask courts for shorter terms. Less than 11 percent returned to prison by October 2016, the latest data available, he said, compared to nearly 45 percent for other prisoners. 4266

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California would become the first state to require businesses to offer electronic receipts unless customers ask for paper copies under legislation proposed on Tuesday.Many businesses and consumers already are moving toward e-receipts, said Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco.But he said a law still is needed because many consumers don't realize most paper receipts are coated with chemicals prohibited in baby bottles, can't be recycled and can contaminate other recycled paper because of the chemicals known as Bisphenol-A (BPA) and Bisphenol-S (BPS).His bill, AB161, would require all businesses to provide proof of purchase receipts electronically starting in 2022 unless the customer asks for a printed copy.RELATED: City Council votes to ban Styrofoam across San DiegoIt comes days after another first-in-the-nation California law took effect requiring dine-in restaurants to provide drinking straws only at customers' request.The penalties in Ting's bill are modeled on the straw bill, said Nick Lapis of Californians Against Waste. It calls for written warnings for the first two violations and a fine of a day for subsequent infractions, with a 0 cap."It's intended to be a pretty light touch in terms of enforcement," Lapis said.Advocates said the use of straws is declining after that law was passed.Many larger stores already offer the choice involving receipts but it is unclear if a mandate would cause a hardship for small and medium-size stores, said California Retailers Association spokeswoman Pamela Williams. Her association and the California Chamber of Commerce have not taken positons on the bill.Ting said businesses can save money by moving away from printed receipts.The advocacy group Green America, which is pushing a "skip the slip" campaign, estimated that millions of trees and billions of gallons of water are used annually to produce paper receipts in the United States.Ting cited studies by the Environmental Working Group and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that retail workers have higher concentrations of BPA or BPS than those who do not have regular contact with receipts.Ting said consumers can still request paper receipts if they are worried about giving out their email addresses for privacy reasons or to avoid having their emails used or sold for marketing purposes. 2382

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Assembly has approved new rules for electric bikes and scooters.Businesses like Bird and Spin have deployed scooters to cities across California and the country in recent years. Often local governments have not set up permits or regulations for the devices.A bill passed by the Assembly on Monday would require electric bike and scooter companies to get permits from cities. It would also require them to agree to rules for parking, maintenance and safety.Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, the bill's author, says while electric bikes are a fun and eco-friendly mode of transportation. But he says they can be hazardous if they are parked or ridden improperly on sidewalks.The Assembly passed the bill 47-12.It now goes to the state Senate.__The bill is AB1286. 814

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- A federal lawsuit was filed Tuesday after a state audit found the California DMV's "motor voter" program that started in 2018 was riddled with technical problems that led to discrepancies in voter registrations.Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a member of the National Republican party, filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday against the state of California that accuses Secretary of State Alex Padilla of violating the National Voter Registration Act.Padilla responded in a statement saying the lawsuit "is a fundamental misrepresentation" of the act. He called the lawsuit an "underhanded attempt" at voter suppression.Dhillon filed the lawsuit on behalf of three California residents who are Republican voters. The lawsuit also names the director of California's Department of Motor Vehicles, Steve Gordon.Dhillon said that a recent audit that found a variety of problems with California DMV's "motor voter" program, which automatically registers people to vote, helped bring the issues in her lawsuit to light. 1039

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Athletes at California colleges could hire agents and sign endorsement deals under a bill the state Legislature sent to the governor on Wednesday, setting up a potential confrontation with the NCAA that could jeopardize the athletic futures of powerhouse programs like USC, UCLA and Stanford.Gov. Gavin Newsom has not said whether he will sign it. But the NCAA Board Of Governors is already urging him not to, sending him a letter Wednesday saying the bill "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics" and would have drastic consequences for California's colleges and universities."Because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, (it) would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions," the letter said. "These outcomes are untenable and would negatively impact more than 24,000 California student-athletes across three divisions."Newsom has 30 days to either sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.The bill would allow student-athletes to hire agents and be paid for the use of their names, images or likenesses. It would stop California universities and the NCAA from banning athletes that take the money. If it becomes law, it would take effect Jan. 1, 2023."I'm sick of being leveraged by the NCAA on the backs of athletes who have the right to their own likeness and image, this is about fairness," Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Los Angeles Democrat, said Monday.The Senate voted 39-0 to pass the bill, which has the endorsement of NBA superstar LeBron James, who skipped college and went directly to the NBA before the league changed its rules to require players to be at least one year removed from high school before entering the draft. But the bill could impact James' 14-year-old son, who is a closely watched basketball prospect in Los Angeles.The NCAA is the governing body for college sports. But membership is voluntary. Athletes can get valuable scholarships, but the NCAA has long banned paying athletes to preserve the academic missions of colleges and universities. But college sports have since morphed into a multibillion-dollar industry, igniting a debate over the fairness of not paying the industry's most visible labor force.Earlier this year, NCAA President Mark Emmert told lawmakers that passing the bill would be premature, noting the NCAA has a committee — led by Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith and Big East Commissioner Val Ackerman — that is exploring the issue. Their report is due in October.The NCAA committee has already said it won't endorse a plan to pay athletes as if they were employees, but they could ease limits on endorsement deals for athletes. The NCAA already lets athletes accept money in some instances. Tennis players can accept up to ,000 in prize money and Olympians can accept winnings from their competitions.The bill still puts some restrictions on athletes, such as forbidding them from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their school's existing contracts.Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, though he did not cast a vote. He said allowing athletes to make money could make universities in rural areas less competitive because there could be fewer sponsorship opportunities in the area.But other lawmakers argued banning college athletes from being paid was a violation of their freedoms."Playing college sports should not have to come at the cost of personal liberty, dignity, self-expression or any other value this legislature is charged with protecting," said Republican Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin. "Let's send a loud and clear message to the NCAA."But in and around California, schools and conferences believe this legislation might not be the best solution.The Pac-12, which includes Southern California, UCLA, Stanford and Cal, issued a statement Wednesday reiterating its previous stance — asking the California Legislature to delay the debate until the NCAA announces formal proposals."We all want to protect and support our student-athletes, and the Pac-12 has played a leadership role in national reforms for student-athletes over the past years," the statement said. "The question is what's the best way to continue to support our student-athletes. We think having more information and informed views will be helpful."J.D. Wicker, the athletic director at San Diego State, a Mountain West Conference member, agreed, saying "California weighing in on this complicates that.""I think the frustration for me is that they probably don't truly understand the NCAA and how we work as a governing body," Wicker said. "Again, it's schools across 50 states and it's all of us working together, whereas the state of California will only harm California schools." 4858