宜宾美容院激光祛斑多少钱宜宾隆鼻假体哪种好,宜宾哪里做韩式三点双眼皮好,宜宾蒜头鼻整形多少钱,宜宾眼部整形,宜宾做双眼皮那里做的好,宜宾开眼角多久能恢复,宜宾激光脱毛会在长吗

The US Department of Education has opened an investigation into the Ohio State University's handling of former students' allegations of sexual misconduct by a school doctor, according to the university.The federal investigation will be conducted by the department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which oversees Title IX complaints, the school said in a statement Thursday.The inquiry, led by the OCR's regional office in Cleveland, Ohio, "will examine whether the university is responding promptly and equitably to complaints and reports by former students," the statement said, "including allegations that employees knew or should have known about the sexual misconduct and allowed the abuse to continue."The scandal surrounding the alleged actions of the late Dr. Richard Strauss has grown since the university first announced in April its own investigation, headed by the law firm Perkins Coie, to look into claims made by male former athletes on 14 sports teams.Since then, more than 100 former Ohio State University students have reported firsthand accounts of sexual misconduct by Strauss, the school said last month.Some of them, mostly former student athletes, have come forward to publicly claim that Strauss sexually abused them under the guise of a medical examination.According to the school, the alleged abuse took place between 1979 and 1997."We welcome the involvement and careful oversight of OCR and look forward to providing any information we can," said Gates Garrity-Rokous, the school's vice president and chief compliance officer, in a statement about the US Department of Education's investigation."We responded promptly and appropriately to the allegations received in April about Dr. Strauss," Garrity-Rokous continued. "We are confident in the independence and thoroughness of the investigation we launched then as well as our ongoing commitment to transparency."The-CNN-Wire 1910

The US called on Turkey to not follow through on threats to attack US-backed forces in Syria Wednesday, an incursion the Pentagon warned could threaten US personnel and derail the fight against ISIS."Unilateral military action into northeast Syria by any party, particularly as US personnel may be present or in the vicinity, is of grave concern. We would find any such actions unacceptable," Commander Sean Robertson, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, told CNN."We believe this dialogue is the only way to secure the border area in a sustainable manner, and believe that uncoordinated military operations will undermine that shared interest," he added.Earlier on Wednesday, Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a televised speech that Turkish troops would launch a military operation east of the Euphrates in Syria, an operation aimed at targeting Kurdish militants.The US troops in Syria regularly work with Kurdish elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces as part of their campaign against ISIS.Turkey sees all Kurdish forces in in Northern Syria as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), listed as terror group by the US and the EU. The US does not share Turkey's view."Our target is definitely not American troops. It is the members of terror organization operating in the region. I want to emphasize this," Erdogan added, saying that he expected the operation to begin "in a couple of days."Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently directed US troops to establish a series of observation posts in the northeast Syria border region as part of an effort to reduce tensions between Turkey and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces.Two US officials told CNN that while the US has observed additional Turkish forces arriving in the area, at this point in time it is assessed that Turkey does not have enough troops in the area to conduct the type of operation in the timeline outlined by Erdogan.However the threat of cross-border shelling remains, potentially putting US troops there at risk.Previous cross-border clashes caused the Syrian Democratic Forces to suspend their hard-fought offensive against the ISIS-held town of Hajin, the terror group's last remaining redoubt east of the Euphrates River."The campaign against ISIS is not over. Coalition forces are working closely with the Syrian Democratic Forces who are in the midst of offensive operations against ISIS in the Middle Euphrates River Valley," Robertson, the Pentagon spokesman said."We should not and cannot allow ISIS to breathe at this critical point or we will jeopardize the significant gains we have made alongside our Coalition partners and risk allowing ISIS to resurge," he added. 2703

The subject of the hit podcast “Serial” could be days away from hearing whether he’ll receive a new trial.On Saturday, Adnan Syed's defense attorney Justin Brown tweeted that he's expecting a ruling from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in the coming week.I expect a ruling from the appeals court this coming week. #FreeAdnan https://t.co/0eQmLaaxFn— Justin Brown (@CJBrownLaw) February 25, 2018 408

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The Trump administration will impose more sanctions on Russia under a chemical and biological warfare law following the poisoning of a former Russian agent and his daughter in the UK earlier this year, the State Department announced Wednesday.In a statement Wednesday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the US had made this decision on Monday, and accused Russia of violating international law. The statement anticipated the sanctions would go into effect around Aug. 22 in line with the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991.Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter Yulia Skripal were hospitalized and treated for a nerve-agent attack in March. Yulia Skripal was discharged from the hospital in April, and her father was discharged in May.The State Department notified Congress on Wednesday of the first of two potential tranches of sanctions required under the 1991 law. Unless Russia takes certain steps, a second set of penalties -- more stringent than this first round -- must follow, according to the law.The first set of sanctions targets certain items the US exports to Russia that could have military uses -- so-called dual use technologies. These are sensitive goods that normally would go through a case-by-case review before they are exported. With these sanctions, the exports will be presumptively denied.A senior State Department official said there would be carve-outs however.The US would then require Russia to assure over the next 90 days that it is no longer using chemical or biological weapons and will not do so in the future. Additionally, the criteria in the law call for Russia to allow on-site inspectors to ensure compliance.The official said that if Russia did not meet the demands, the US "will have to consider whether to impose a second tranche of sanctions as specified by the statute."The United Kingdom welcomed the move from the US on Wednesday. In a short statement, a government spokesperson said, "The strong international response to the use of a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury sends an unequivocal message to Russia that its provocative, reckless behaviour will not go unchallenged." 2212