U.S. Route 183

U.S. Route 183 is a north–south United States highway. U.S. 183 was the last US route to be completely paved. The 20-mile (32 km) segment in Loup County, Nebraska, north of Taylor, was unpaved until 1967. The highway's southern terminus is in Refugio, Texas, at the southern intersection of U.S. Highway 77 and Alternate US 77. Its northern terminus is in Presho, South Dakota, at an intersection with Interstate 90. US 183 and Alt US 77 overlap for their final 80 miles (130 km) between Cuero and Refugio.

Route description

Texas

US-183 begins in Refugio, sharing a multiplex with US-77A. The two highways continue north through Goliad County until they split in DeWitt County. US-183 crosses I-10 south of the town of Luling.

The largest city that US-183 passes through is Austin, Texas, where it is mostly a limited access highway. Northwest of Austin, US-183 passes through the suburbs of Cedar Park and Leander, where the 183A toll road runs parallel to it. In Lampasas County, US-183 shares a multiplex with US-190 between the towns of Lampasas and Lometa.

Medical ultrasound

Medical ultrasound (also known as diagnostic sonography or ultrasonography) is a diagnostic imaging technique based on the application of ultrasound. It is used to see internal body structures such as tendons, muscles, joints, vessels and internal organs. Its aim is often to find a source of a disease or to exclude any pathology. The practice of examining pregnant women using ultrasound is called obstetric ultrasound, and is widely used.

Ultrasound is sound waves with frequencies which are higher than those audible to humans (>20,000Hz). Ultrasonic images also known as sonograms are made by sending pulses of ultrasound into tissue using a probe. The sound echoes off the tissue; with different tissues reflecting varying degrees of sound. These echoes are recorded and displayed as an image to the operator.

Many different types of images can be formed using sonographic instruments. The most well-known type is a B-mode image, which displays the acoustic impedance of a two-dimensional cross-section of tissue. Other types of image can display blood flow, motion of tissue over time, the location of blood, the presence of specific molecules, the stiffness of tissue, or the anatomy of a three-dimensional region.

United States v. White

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Facts and Procedural History

Criminal defendant White was convicted of narcotics charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The conviction was based on evidence obtained from recorded conversations in 1965 and 1966 between the defendant White and a government informant wearing a concealed radio transmitter. White appealed the conviction, claiming the conversations were recorded without his permission, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy (see Katz), and the conversations were recorded without a warrant, violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, White argued that the recorded conversations should not have been admitted as evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 405 F.2d 838, reversed the district court and remanded, and certiorari was granted.

Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas

Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury.

Background

Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated.

Decision of the Court

The US Supreme Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The court went on to elaborate: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one."

See also