Forget everything! Just forcus on these CIA-IV Q and A.

CIA-IV real test | CIA-IV online exam | CIA-IV pass marks | CIA-IV writing test questions | CIA-IV Practice test - bigdiscountsales.com

CIA-IV - The Certified Internal Auditor Part 4 - Dump Information

Vendor	:	Financial
Exam Code	:	CIA-IV
Exam Name	:	The Certified Internal Auditor Part 4
Questions and Answers	:	535 Q & A
Updated On	:	November 13, 2017
PDF Download Mirror	:	CIA-IV Brain Dump
Get Full Version	:	Pass4sure CIA-IV Full Version

where must I sign in for CIA-IV exam?

tremendous CIA-IV stuff, CIA-IV legitimate questions, CIA-IV accurate solutions. expert exam simulator. i was relieved to observethat this education p.c. has necessary data, simply what I had to know to bypass this examination. I hate whilst they are trying to sell you stuff you dont need inside the first region. This wasnt the case even though, I were given precisely what I needed, and that is demonstrated by the fact that I passed this CIA-IV exam remaining week, with a almost best score. With this examination enjoy, killexams.com has received my believe for years to come.

these CIA-IV actual Questions works within the actual take a look at.

killexams.com is an correct indicator for a college students and customers functionality to work and take a look at for the CIA-IV exam. it's far an correct indication in their ability, particularly with tests taken quickly earlier than starting off their academic look at for the CIA-IV examination. killexams.com gives a dependable updated. The CIA-IV tests deliver a thorough photo of candidates capability and capabilities.

No greater worries while making ready for the CIA-IV examination.

That was Awesome! I got Latest Braindumps of CIA-IV exam.

I cracked my CIA-IV exam on my first try with seventy two.five% in just 2 days of education. thank you killexams.com for your treasured questions. I did the examination with none fear. searching ahead to clean the CIA-IV examination along with your help.

proper source to get CIA-IV modern brain sell off paper.

i have been the usage of the killexams.com for some time to all my checks. last week, I surpassed with a fantastic score within the CIA-IV exam by means of the usage of the Q&A observe resources. I had some doubts on topics, but the fabric cleared all my doubts. i've without problems determined the solution for all my doubts and issues. thanks for providing me the strong and dependable fabric. it's miles the high-quality product as I recognise.

simply attempt real CIA-IV check questions and achievement is yours.

It turned into truely very helpful. Your correct query financial institution helped me clean CIA-IV in first attempt with seventy eight.75% marks. My rating changed into 90% but due to bad marking it came to 78.seventy five%. first rateprocess killexams.com group..may additionally you achieve all of the success. thanks.

Dont waste your time on searching internet, just cross for those CIA-IV Questions and solutions.

My brother saden me telling me that I wasnt going to undergo the CIA-IV exam. I word once I look outside the window, such a lot of special human beings need to be seen and heard from and they simply need the attention folks however i can tell you that we students can get this interest whilst we skip our CIA-IV test and i will let you know how I cleared my CIA-IV checkit turned into best when I were given my observe questions from killexams.com which gave me the wish in my eyes collectively all the time.

Party is over! Time to study and pass the exam.

phrase of mouth is a completely sturdy manner of advertising and marketing for a product. I say, when something is so appropriate, why no longer do a little high quality publicity for it I would like to unfold the word about this one of a type and virtually awesome killexams.com which helped me in performing outstandingly properly in my CIA-IV examination and exceeding all expectations. i might say that this killexams.com is one of the maximum admirable on line coaching ventures i have ever stumble upon and it merits a whole lot of popularity.

were given no trouble! 3 days instruction of CIA-IV braindumps is needed.

this is a splendid CIA-IV examination preparation. i purchased it due to the fact that I could not locate any books or PDFs to have a look at for the CIA-IV examination. It turned out to be higher than any e-book on account that this practice examgives you true questions, simply the way youll be requested them on the exam. No useless information, no inappropriatequestions, that is the way it was for me and my buddies. I noticeably advocate killexams.com to all my brothers and sisters who plan to take CIA-IV examination.

Very easy to get certified in CIA-IV exam with these Q&A.

I took this examination remaining month and passed it thanks to my instruction with the Killexams kit. this is a outstanding exam unload, greater reliable than I could anticipate. All questions are legitimate, and it is usually masses of practise information. higher and extra dependable than I expected - I passed with over 97%, that's the satisfactory CIA-IV exam score. I dont know why so few IT people understand approximately Killexams, or maybe its simply my conservative environment anyways, I may be spreading the word among my buddies for the reason that this is outstanding and can be beneficial to many.

See more Financial dumps

Latest Exams added on bigdiscountsales

1Z0-453 | 210-250 | 300-210 | 500-205 | 500-210 | 70-765 | 9A0-409 | C2010-555 | C2090-136 | C9010-260 | C9010-262 | C9020-560 | C9020-568 | C9050-042 | C9050-548 | C9050-549 | C9510-819 | C9520-911 | C9520-923 | C9520-928 | C9520-929 | C9550-512 | CPIM-BSP | C_TADM70_73 | C_TB1200_92 | C_TBW60_74 | C_TPLM22_64 | C_TPLM50_95 | DNDNS-200 | DSDPS-200 | E20-562 | E20-624 | E_HANABW151 | E_HANAINS151 | JN0-1330 | JN0-346 | JN0-661 | MA0-104 | MB2-711 | NSE6 | OMG-OCRES-A300 | P5050-031 |

See more dumps on bigdiscountsales

000-419 | 200-105 | A2040-402 | | 201-01 | A2010-577 | CA0-002 | 000-908 | HP3-X10 | 000-M222 | M2020-732 | 70-564-CSharp | 1Z0-539 | 040-444 | 3X0-203 | STAAR | 050-639 | TOEFL | 132-S-720-1 | HP2-K16 | ISEE | 650-251 | 000-220 | HP0-738 | 9L0-008 | 1Z0-425 | 00M-502 | 250-240 | HP0-W02 | GD0-100 | 000-887 | MB5-229 | EX0-105 | C2010-510 | 000-448 | 922-109 | 000-799 | MOS-EXP | 1Z0-852 | 70-552-VB | C2040-422 | 000-350 | E20-559 | LOT-406 | HP2-B102 | 000-622 | PB0-200 | BI0-125 | GPHR | HPE6-A29 |

CIA-IV Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 180

The managerial factor that may lead to overbuilding in an industry is

Management's belief that the career consequences of overcapacity appear to be more serious than those of under capacity.
Management's production orientation.
Inflation of expectations by industry buzz.
Uncertainty caused by changes in industry structure.

Answer: B

Management that is production-oriented may be more likely to overbuild than marketing-or finance- oriented management.

QUESTION: 181

What governmental factor most likely will lead to overbuilding in a global industry?

Tax incentives are given to local subsidiaries of foreign firms.
The government favors an indigenous industry that has a small minimum efficient scale.
Environmental regulations are imposed on domestic firms.
Anti-bribery laws impede domestic firms from competing globally.

Answer: A

Governmental factors may lead to overbuilding. For example, tax incentives may promote excess capacity by permitting foreign subsidiaries to pay no tax on earnings retained in the business. A nation also may wish to create an indigenous industry. When the minimum efficient scale is great in relation to world demand, the excess production in the country may contribute to global overcapacity. Furthermore, governmental employment pressures may result in overbuilding to create jobs or avoid job loss.

QUESTION: 182

Which factor is most likely to limit expansion of a firm's productive capacity?

Senior managers have production backgrounds.
The firm operates in one industry.
Current technology will soon be obsolete.
Demand uncertainty is low.

Answer: C

A firm's behavior may send signals to competitors that building is unwise. For example, it may announce an expansion project or indicate in some way that forecasts of demand are unfavorable or that current technology will soon be obsolete.

QUESTION: 183

What condition is most likely necessary to the success of a strategy of preemptive expansion?

Competitors believe that the move is preemptive.
The result is intense industry conflict.
The firm does not know the expectations of competitors about the market.
The learning-curve effect is small.

Answer: A

Competitors must believe that the move is preemptive. Hence, the firm should know competitors' expectations about the market or be able to influence them favorably. Moreover, the preempting firm must have credibility, such as resources, technology, and a history of credibility, to support its statements and moves.

QUESTION: 184

Entry into a new business may be made by internal development or acquisition. Entry through internal development usually involves creation of a full-fledged new business entity. The costs likely to be incurred by an internal entrant include

II. nvestments to overcome entry barriers

Change in the equilibrium level of supply and demand
Lower prices charged by competitors
Higher marketing costs

I and II only.
I and IV only.
II, Ill, and IV only.
I, II, Ill, and IV.

Answer: D

An internal entrant must cope with structural barriers and retaliation by existing firms. Costs incurred by the internal entrant include initial investments to overcome entry barriers (facilities, inventory, branding, technology, distribution channels, sources of materials, etc.), operating losses in the start-up phase, and the effects of retaliation (e.g., higher marketing

costs, capacity expansion, or lower prices). Other costs include the price increases for factors of production that may result because of the new entry. Also, the capacity added to the industry by the entrant may affect the equilibrium level of supply and demand. The result may be additional competitive costs as firms with excess capacity cut prices.

QUESTION: 185

Entry into a new business may be made by acquisition. The analysis differs from that for entry by internal development. A key point is that prices are set in the market for acquisitions. Accordingly, a buyer should most likely expect to make above- average profits when the

Market is active and well organized.
Seller can choose to continue operating the business.
Market for acquisitions is imperfect.
Buyer adopts a sequential entry strategy.

Answer: C

Acquisitions are more likely to earn above-average profits when the expected present value to the seller of continuing operations is low, e.g., because the seller needs funds, has capital limits, or has management weaknesses. Above-average profits also are more likely when the market for acquisitions is imperfect. For example, (1) the buyer may have better information,

(2) there are few bidders, (3) the economy is weak, (4) the seller is weak, or (5) the seller has reasons to sell other than profit maximization. Moreover, the buyer may have a unique ability to operate the seller.

QUESTION: 186

A firm enters a new business by creating a full-fledged new entity (an internal entrant). The internal entrant is least likely to cause disruption and retaliation in a

Slow-growth industry.
Fragmented industry.
Commodity-producing industry.
Highly-concentrated industry.

Answer: B

In a fragmented industry, many firms might be affected but not significantly. These firms also might have no ability to retaliate. Firms in a fragmented industry have insignificant market shares and little influence on industry outcomes.

QUESTION: 187

Entry by a firm into a new business may be through the creation of a full-fledged new business entity. The new entrant is most likely to cause industry disruption and retaliation when

The industry is fast-growing.
The industry is highly concentrated.
Fixed costs are low.
The market is segmented.

Answer: B

In a highly concentrated industry, the internal entrant is more likely to have a significant and noticeable effect on particular firms with the ability to retaliate. In a fragmented industry, many firms might be affected but not significantly. These firms also might have no ability to retaliate.

QUESTION: 188

A firm may decide to enter a new business by creating a new entity. After undertaking a structural analysis, the internal entrant chooses an appropriate target industry. The most likely target is an industry in which the entrant

Will have to develop its own distribution network.
Can raise mobility barriers after entry.
Will not have to compete with a dominant firm that seeks to protect the industry.
Calculates that the costs of retaliation to existing firms are less than the benefits.

Answer: B

A distinctive ability to influence industry structure is another basis for earning above-average profits. Thus, an ability to raise mobility barriers after the firm has entered the industry is a reason to target that industry. Moreover, a firm may be able to recognize that entering a fragmented industry will start a process of consolidation and increased entry barriers.

QUESTION: 189

A firm wishes to enter a new business by creating a new entity (an internal entrant). The internal entrant is most likely to achieve above-average profits by targeting which industry?

An industry with high entry costs.
An industry with a stabilized structure.
A new industry.
An industry in equilibrium if entry positively affects the firm's existing businesses.

Answer: C

A firm may be able to achieve above-average profits by choosing appropriate targets. For example, an industry may be in disequilibrium because it is new, entry barriers are rising, or firms have poor information. In a new industry,

the structure is not established,
entry barriers are low, (3) retaliation is unlikely,

resource supplies have not been locked up, and
brands are not well developed.

However, initial firms may have greater costs than later entrants. Rising entry barriers favor an early entrant whose subsequent competitors will face higher costs. The early entrant also may have an edge in product differentiation. Poor information may perpetuate disequilibrium because firms that might enter the industry may not be aware of its potential.

QUESTION: 190

According to the behavioral theory of management.

Employees are motivated to fulfill needs.
Morale problems are not goal related.
Compensation is a universal motivator.
Productivity is not correlated with job satisfaction.

Answer: A

The behavioral theory of management holds that all people including employees) have complex needs, desires, and attitudes. The fulfillment of needs is the goal toward which employees are motivated. Effective leadership matches need-fulfillment rewards with desired behavior tasks) that accomplishes organizational goals.

Financial CIA-IV Exam (The Certified Internal Auditor Part 4) Detailed Information

Certified Internal Auditor (CIA): Strengthen Your Core
The CIA journey begins with a focus on The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) and aspects of mandatory guidance under the IPPF. The journey continues with a focus on managing an internal audit project and culminates with concepts related to internal control, risk, governance, and technology. The CIA is a 3-part process for establishing your foundational core and starting point for career growth to:
Distinguish you from your peers.
Demonstrate your proficiency with internal staff and external clients.
Develop your knowledge of best practices in the industry.
Demonstrate your proficiency and professionalism.
Lay a foundation for continued improvement and advancement.
Get Started
Internal Audit Practitioner: A New First Stop on Your Road to Success
The IIA's Internal Audit Practitioner designation.The Internal Audit Practitioner designation is a great way to quickly demonstrate your internal audit aptitude. You can earn this new designation through social badging by completing the Internal Audit Practitioner application and taking and passing the Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) Part One exam.
Candidates who have successfully completed the CIA Part One exam within the past 24 months are also eligible to apply.
For more information, please visit the Internal Audit Practitioner web page.
Six Steps to Certification
If you need help getting started, refer to the six steps to certification an internal auditor should review when making the decision to become certified in the profession.
Quick Links
Internal Audit Practitioner
CIA Eligibility Requirements
CIA Exam Syllabus
Sample Exam Questions
CPE Requirements for CIAs
CIA Exam Preparation Resources
CBT Exam Tutorial
Internal Audit Practitioner: A New First Stop on Your Road to Success
The IIA's Internal Audit Practitioner designation.To support new and rotational auditors as they endeavor to take the first step on their personal journey into internal auditing, The IIA is pleased to announce the Internal Audit Practitioner designation.
The Internal Audit Practitioner designation is a great way to quickly demonstrate your internal audit aptitude. You can earn this new designation through social badging by completing the Internal Audit Practitioner application and taking and passing the Certified Internal Auditor® (CIA®) Part One exam. You can apply through CCMS to obtain this special designation.
Candidates who have previously passed CIA Part One who wish to obtain the Internal Audit Practitioner designation may apply as long as they passed the exam no more than 24 months prior to applying for the designation.
Ideal for New or Rotational Internal Auditors
If you are beginning your auditing career journey, obtaining this designation allows you to make a statement about your knowledge and aptitude as you progress through CIA Part 2 and 3. If you are navigating through a rotational role, the Internal Audit Practitioner designation provides you with the foundational knowledge you will need to make the most of your experience.
A Great Way to Train your Staff on the Foundation of Internal Audit
If you manage an audit team, the Internal Audit Practitioner designation is a great way to establish a common foundation of skills and knowledge related to internal audit best practices. Set your team up for internal audit success by taking steps to insure they are well versed in internal audit basics by encouraging your associates to take and pass Part One of the CIA exam and earn the Internal Audit Practitioner designation.
Pricing Information
This chart states the application and registration fees for the Internal Audit Practitioner program:
First-time Applicant Members Nonmember
Internal Audit Practitioner Application fee US$100 US$200
CIA Part One Exam registration fee US$250 US$350
Applicants who have already completed and passed the CIA Part One exam 24 months prior to applying for the Internal Audit Practitioner designation must complete the Internal Audit Practitioner application at a reduced fee:
Previously passed the CIA Part One exam within 24 months Members Nonmembers
Internal Audit Practitioner Application fee US$50 US$100
Register through CCMS today! To learn more about the program and eligibility requirements, please visit the Internal Audit Practitioner FAQ.
Eligibility Requirements
Please refer to the Internal Audit Practitioner FAQ for full details.
Requirements
Internal Audit Practitioner candidates must meet the eligibility requirements for character, work experience, and identification. Before a candidate application can be approved, ALL documentation (character reference and identification) must be received and approved by The IIA’s Certification staff.
Work Experience
Internal Audit Practitioner candidates must have six months internal auditor or equivalent experience (i.e., experience in audit or assessment disciplines, including internal auditing, external auditing, quality assurance, compliance, and internal control). The experience requirement must be fulfilled by the point of completion. There is no defined educational requirement.
Experience Verification Form
Once you have completed the form, please access the Certification Document Upload Portal and upload your form(s) there. (Submit the document type as Work Experience.)
Character Reference
Candidates must exhibit high moral and professional character and must submit a Character Reference Form signed by a CIA, CGAP, CCSA, CFSA, CRMA, or the candidate's supervisor.
Character Reference Form
Once you have completed the form, please access the Certification Document Upload Portal and upload your form(s) there. (Submit the document type as Character Reference.)
Proof of Identification
Candidates must provide proof of identification in the form of a copy of the candidate’s official passport or national identity card. These must indicate current status; expired documents will not be accepted. All documents must be scanned and uploaded through the Document Upload Portal in a manner that ensures the photo is clearly legible.
Internal Audit Practitioner FAQ
FAQ Expand All
What is the Internal Audit Practitioner program?
The Internal Audit Practitioner program is offered by The IIA and provides separate recognition and status for candidates who successfully complete and pass the CIA Part One exam.
How will the Internal Audit Practitioner program benefit candidates?
The Internal Audit Practitioner program is the initial key to professional success, opening doors for career opportunities, and earning candidates increased credibility and respect within their profession and organization.
For most, it is an important stepping stone towards completion of the full CIA or of those specialty certifications that require completion of the CIA Part One exam as a co-requisite (currently CRMA). It is also a desirable minimum achievement for those who are likely to be in internal auditing for two years or less.
Who is eligible to apply?
Please use the PDF to determine if you are eligible to apply.
What are the eligibility requirements?
The eligibility requirements for Internal Audit Practitioner are as follows:
Valid photo ID
Completion of the Internal Audit Practitioner program application
Character reference
Six months internal audit or equivalent experience (i.e., experience in audit or assessment disciplines, including internal auditing, external auditing, quality assurance, compliance, and internal control)
The experience requirement must be fulfilled by the point of completion. There is no defined educational requirement.
How much does the Internal Audit Practitioner recognition program cost?
The application and registration fees for the Internal Audit Practitioner program are as follows:
First-time Applicant Members Non-member
Internal Audit Practitioner Application fee USD $100 USD $200
CIA Part One Exam
registration fee USD $250 USD $350
Applicants who have already completed and passed the CIA Part One exam 24 months prior to applying for the Internal Audit Practitioner designation must complete the Internal Audit Practitioner application at a reduced fee:
Previously passed the CIA
P1 exam within 24 months Members Non-member
Internal Audit Practitioner
Application fee USD $50 USD $100
Do I have to be a member of The IIA to apply?
While Internal Audit Practitioner candidates are not required to join The IIA, we strongly encourage you to take advantage of the member benefits including exam fee discounts, free CPE reporting, networking opportunities, and more.
If you live within North America click HERE
If you live outside of North America click HERE
How do I apply to the Internal Audit Practitioner program?
Complete the Internal Audit Practitioner application (available late June) through The IIA’s Certification Candidate Management System (CCMS).
Once you have submitted your application, submit your required documentation through The IIA’s document upload portal. Once your documents have been approved, you will automatically receive notification of your status. To access The IIA’s document upload portal click HERE.
How do I register for the CIA Part One exam?
Once your application for the Internal Audit Practitioner is approved, log into CCMS and complete the CIA Part One exam registration form. The exam is available through computer-based testing, allowing you to test year-round at more than 500 locations worldwide at any IIA-authorized Pearson VUE testing center. To locate the testing centers nearest you, visit the Pearson VUE website. You must apply and register in The IIA's Certification Candidate Management System (CCMS) prior to scheduling an exam.
What is the syllabus for the CIA Part One exam?
The topics tested include aspects of mandatory guidance from the IPPF; internal control and risk concepts; as well as tools and techniques for conducting internal audit engagements.
Note: All items in this section of the syllabus will be tested at the Proficiency knowledge level unless otherwise indicated below.
Mandatory Guidance (35-45%)
Internal Control/Risk (25-35%) – Awareness Level
Conducting Internal Audit Engagement – Audit Tools and Techniques (25-35%)
To review the full syllabus for the CIA Part One exam please click HERE. To review sample exam questions for the CIA Part One exam please click HERE.
How long is the CIA Part One exam?
The CIA Part One exam consists of 125 questions. Candidates will have 2 hours and 30 minutes to complete the exam.
What do I have to do to retain my recognition?
Internal Audit Practitioners will be awarded 2 years of CPE. At the end of the two years, you can report CPE once to keep your designation active for 12 additional months. At the end of the 3rd full year of holding the Internal Audit Practitioner, the designation will automatically expire.
For example if you earn the Internal Audit Practitioner on 1 June 2015, your first CPE report is due on or before 31 December 2017. After that, your designation will expire at the end of 2018.
What if I earn a certified status in the CIA or CRMA programs?
If you complete the CIA program (pass all three parts of the CIA exam) or obtain the CRMA, your Internal Audit Practitioner designation will automatically expire.
Why does my designation expire after 3 full years?
The Internal Audit Practitioner is not designed to be held indefinitely. This program is designed to accommodate those that will only be in the professional for a short amount of time, and those that do not yet have enough experience to enter the full CIA program. As such, the designation will expire after 3 full calendar years.
Will candidates receive certification?
The Internal Audit Practitioner program is not a certification program. The program is intended to recognize candidates who successfully complete the CIA Part One exam and are approved for the program.
Will I receive a paper certificate?
No, individuals that earn the Internal Audit Practitioner designation will not receive a paper certificate. Instead, you will receive a digital badge that represents your achievement. Candidates will be able to display their recognition through social badging. Social badging allows holders of IIA qualifications to digitally display their credentials on social and professional networking sites at no cost to the candidate. For more information on Social Badging, please click HERE.
Certified Internal Auditor® (CIA®) Exam Syllabus
The Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) exam tests a candidate's knowledge of current internal auditing practices and understanding of internal audit issues, risks and remedies.
Exam Non-disclosure
The CIA exam is a non-disclosed examination, which means that current exam questions and answers will not be published or divulged.
NOTE: Exam topics and/or format are subject to change as approved by The IIA's Professional Certification Board (PCB).
Part 1 – Internal Audit Basics
125 questions | 2.5 Hours (150 minutes)
The CIA exam Part 1 topics tested include aspects of mandatory guidance from the IPPF; internal control and risk concepts; as well as tools and techniques for conducting internal audit engagements. Note: All items in this section of the syllabus will be tested at the Proficiency knowledge level unless otherwise indicated below.
Part 2 – Internal Audit Practice
100 questions | 2.0 Hours (120 minutes)
The CIA exam Part 2 topics tested include managing the internal audit function via the strategic and operational role of internal audit and establishing a risk-based plan; the steps to manage individual engagements (planning, supervision, communicating results, and monitoring outcomes); as well as fraud risks and controls. Note: All items in this section of the syllabus will be tested at the Proficiency knowledge level unless otherwise indicated below.
Part 3 – Internal Audit Knowledge Elements
100 questions | 2.0 Hours (120 minutes)
The CIA exam Part 3 topics tested include governance and business ethics; risk management; organizational structure, including business processes and risks; communication; management and leadership principles; information technology and business continuity; financial management; and the global business environment. Note: All items in this section of the syllabus will be tested at the Awareness knowledge level unless otherwise indicated below.

Enlisting its guardian drones in southcoms drug

seizures on the border and drug interdiction over coastal and neighboring waters are certainly the top operative priorities of OAM. Enlisting its Guardian drones in SOUTHCOM’s drug interdiction e´orts underscores the increasing emphasis within the entire CBP on counternarcotic operations. CBP is a DHS agency that is almost exclusively focused on tactics. While CBP as the umbrella agency and the O²ce of the Border Patrol and OAM all have strategic plans, these plans are marked by their rigid military frameworks, their startling absence of serious strategic thinking, and the di´use distinctions between strategic goals and tactics. As a result of the border security buildup, south-north drug ³ows (particularly cocaine and more high-value drugs) have shifted back to marine smuggling, mainly through the Caribbean, but also through the Gulf of Mexico and the Paci±c.62 Rather than reevaluating drug prohibition and drug control frameworks for border policy, CBPOAM has rationalized the procurement of more UAVs on the shifts in the geographical arenas of the drug war – albeit couching the tactical changes in the new drug war language of “transnational criminal organizations” and “narcoterrorism.” The overriding framework for CBPOAM operations is evolving from border security and homeland security to national security, as recent CBP presentations about its Guardian deployments illustrates. Shortly before retiring after seven years as OAM ±rst chief, Major General Kostelnik told a gathering of military contractors: “CPB’s UAS Deployment Vision strengthens the National Security Response Capability.”63 He may well be right, but the U.S. public and Congress need to know if DHS plans to institute guidelines and limits that regulate the extent of DHS operational collaboration with DOD and the CIA. IV. No Transparency, No Accountability, No De±ned Limits to Homeland Security Drone Missions The UAV program of CBP’s O²ce of Air and Marine is not top secret – there are no secret ops, no targeted killings, no “signature” strikes against suspected terrorists, no clandestine bases – like the CIA and U.S. military UAV operations overseas. While the UAV program under DHS isn’t classi±ed, information about the program is scarce – shielded by evasive program o²cials, the classi±cation of key documents, and the failure of CBPOAM to share information about the number, objectives and performance of its UAV operations. DHS has also not been forthcoming about its partnerships and shared missions with local law enforcement, foreign governments and the U.S. military and intelligence sectors. CBP has kept a tight lid on its drone program. Over the past nine years, CBP has steadily expanded its UAV program without providing any detailed information about the program’s strategic plan , performance and total costs. Information about the homeland security drones has been limited, for the most part, to a handful of CBP announcements about new drone purchases and a series of unveri±able CBP statistics about drone-related drug seizures and immigrant arrests.

Corporate Integrity Agreement with Pfizer

CORPORATE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERA OF THE DERTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND PFIZER INC I. PREAMBLE Pfizer (pfizer) hereby enters into this Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Office ofInspector General (OIG) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promote compliance with the statutes, regulations, and written Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(f)) (Federal health care program requirements) and with the statutes, regulations, and written directives ofthe Food and Drug Administration (FDA requirements). Contemporaneously with this CIA, Pfizer is entering into a Settlement Agreement with the United States. Pfizer wil also enter into settlement agreements with various States (State Settlement Agreement and Release) and Pfizer's agreement to this CIA is a condition precedent to those agreements. directives of Prior to the Effective Date, Pfizer established a compliance program and initiated certain voluntary compliance measures. In addition, in May 2004, Pfizer entered into a CIA with the OIG in connection with the May 2004 settlement with the United States ofa different matter. Pfizer shall continue to fulfill its obligations as required under the 2004 CIA, including the submission of its final Annual Report in September 2009 and responding to any requests for additional information from the OIG in connection with its 2004 CIA. II. TERM AND SCOPE OF THE CIA A. The period of the compliance obligations assumed by Pfizer under this CIA shall be five reporting periods, as defined below. The effective date of this CIA shall be the date on which the final signatory executes this document (Effective Date). The first Reporting Period shall be from the Effective Date through December 3 i, 20 i O. The second and subsequent Reporting Periods shall be from January i through December 3 i of each of the subsequent four calendar years. Corporate Integrity Agreement Pfizer i Document hosted at

War, Globalization, and Reproduction

Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.4, Winter 2002 266
NOTES

1 By a recent count there were 75 countries experiencing some form of war in 1999 (Effe 1999); 33 of
them are to be found in Africa's 43 continental nations. This is the "Fourth World War" against the world's
poor that Subcomandante Marcos often writes about.
2 For a description of this new phase of capitalism that emphasizes the disappearance of interclass
mediations see Federici (1999) and Midnight Notes (1992). The phrase "new enclosures" is used in these
articles to indicate that the thrust of contemporary capitalism is to annihilate any guarantees of subsistence
that were recognized by socialist, post-colonial or Keynesian states in the 1950s and 1960s. This process
must be violent in order to succeed.
3 The immense existing literature on structural adjustment, globalization and neoliberalism has amply
described this transfer of wealth. See: (Brecher and Costello 1994), (Bello 1994), (Barnet and Cavanagh
1994), and (Federici 1999).
4 The literature on structural adjustment in Africa is also immense. Since the mid-1980s, NGOs (both
international and domestic) have become essential to the implementation of structural adjustment
programmes, as they have taken over the areas of social reproduction that the state is forced to defund
when it is structurally adjusted. As Alex de Waal writes: "...the combination of neo-liberalism and
advocacy of a 'human face' has created a new role for international NGOs as subcontractors in the large-
scale delivery of basic services such as health, agricultural extension and food rations.... Often, the larger
service-delivery NGOs (CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children Fund) have been drawn in
when there has been a crisis such as famine or institutional collapse, and have stayed on afterwards. In
other cases, NGOs have placed advisers in ministries (health is the favourite) and occasionally they have
even taken over responsibility for entire services. The basic drug supply for clinics in the capital of Sudan,
primary health care in rural Uganda and almost all TB and leprosy programmes in Tanzania are just three
of the 'national' health programmes largely directed by international NGOs using funds from Euro-
American institutional donors" (de Waal 1997: 53).
5 A good example of this plundering of weaker groups is to be found in the Sudan, where, in late 1980s, the
Sudanese government gave the Murahaliin militia, drawn from the Baggara Arabs, the right to plunder the
cattle wealth of the Dinka. "Their raids were frequent, widespread and devastating. The raiders stole
livestock, destroyed villages, poisoned wells and killed indiscriminately. They were also implicated in
enslaving captives. Displaced survivors fled to garrison towns, where they were forced to sell their cattle
and other assets cheaply" (de Waal 1997: 94). For more on this process see (Duffield 1994: 54-57).
6 For an analysis of World Bank policies promoting the capitalization of agriculture in Africa see
(Caffentzis 1995).
7 The actual warfare between the government and the Islamic fundamentalists began with the
government's refusal to recognize the electoral gains of the fundamentalists in early 1992. But the roots of
the conflict are to be found in the government's harsh response to the 1988 anti-IMF riots. See (Stone
1997).
8 In 1987, Oxfam reported that a European Commission official responded to its request to aid pastoralists
in Southern Sudan with a self-fulfilling prophesy: "In his view, pastoralism was, in any case, non-viable and
in decline all over the region". Oxfam went on to comment: "It is important to note that USAID, UNICEF,
and EEC have all recently expressed similar views concerning pastoralism in the South; that it is on the
way out and in twenty years would have disappeared anyway" (Keen and Wilson 1994: 214).
9 As de Waal writes: "...the first negotiated agreement on access to a war zone (was) Operation Lifeline
in Sudan April 1989...(this was) followed in 1991-2 with the concept of 'cross-mandate' operations, for
example in eastern Ethiopia, where UNHCR, UNICEF and WFP assisted refugees, displaced people and

Lawlor v. Warden

Lawlor v. Warden :: 2014 :: Supreme Court of Virginia Decisions :: Virginia Case Law :: Virginia Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia Justia › U.S. Law › Case Law › Virginia Case Law › Supreme Court of Virginia Decisions › 2014 › Lawlor v. Warden Justia Opinion Summary Defendant was convicted of capital murder in the commission of, or subsequent to, rape or attempted rape and capital murder in the commission of abduction with intent to defile. Defendant was sentenced to death on each conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentences. Here the Supreme Court considered Defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court dismissed the petition, holding (1) the Commonwealth did not commit Brady violations or present false testimony or allow it to go uncorrected; (2) Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel; and (3) the remainder of Defendant’s claims were either barred or without merit.

VIRGINIA: ~ tk..~ gown- or~ kid rd tk..~ gown- f?lJ~ m tk gityo~(Nl, ?resent: Mark All tk 31st Friday ckyO October, 2014. Justices c Lawlor, against Petitioner, Record No. 131972 Keith W. Davis, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent. Upon a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed December 16, 2013, and the respondent's motion to dismiss, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be that the wr should not issue. Mark Eric Lawlor was convicted in the County of capital murder in r anted rcuit Court of Fairfax commission of, or subsequent to, or attempted rape, Code § 18.2-31(5), and capital murder the commission of abduction with 31(1), and was sentenced to ent to defile, Code ath on each conviction. affirmed Lawlor's convictions § 18.2 This Court upheld his sentences of de in Lawlor v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 187, 738 S.E.2d 847, cert. den U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 427 (2013). The victim, Genevieve Or ,was found on the floor of the living area of her studio apartment. door to Orange's apartment was unlocked and there were no signs of forced entry. Orange had been struck at least 47 t objects. s with one or more blunt Some of Orange's wounds were consistent with having been Others were consistent with having a frying struck wi th a hammer. struck cal examinat eauent en established had aspirated blood and sustained defensive wounds to that her hands eating she arms, conscious been alive during some part of the beating. 's body lay near her couch, which was saturated with was naked from the waist down, her bra and t-shirt had blood. been pushed up over her breasts, and semen was smeared on her abdomen right thigh. underpants had been f bloodi Her soi to the floor nearby. was found near Orange's body. sand metal A broken off and Its wooden handle the kitchen sink, near a bent and bloody metal frying was found pan. He also worked Lawlor resided in Orange's apartment building. to each there as a leasing consultant and had access to ke apartment. Testing of showed DNA consistent admitted atto semen on Orange's abdomen and thigh th Lawlor's DNA. or had kill Orange, but contested the abduction. allegations of premeditation, rape CLAIMS (I), In claims At trial, Lawlor's (II) & (V) (I) and (II), Lawlor alleges the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory information as required by Brady v. Ma ~~L. ........ _ _ , 373 U. S. 83 sented false testimony or (1963), and allowed it to go uncorrected in violation of U.S. 264 As (1959), and Gi lio v. Unit v. Illinois States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Court has stated previously: [], the United States reme Court held that "the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon reauest violates due process where the 2 360 evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespect of the good ith or bad faith of the secution." [373 U.S.] at 87. Exculpatory e dence is material if there is a rea Ie probability that the outcome of the oceeding would have been different the evidence been disclosed to the defense. "A reasonable is one which is sufficient to in the outcome of proceeding. Muhammad v. Warden, 274 Va. 3, 4, 646 S.E.2d 182, 186 (2007) (citations that, tted) . s Court has previously held Furthermore, . , we must "to find that a violation of Napue occurred the testimony [at issue] was false, second ne first t dete lsity, and finally that secution knew of the that the the jury's judgment." falsity af (II), Lawlor alleges Detective In a portion of claims (I) John Tuller lied in his curriculum v defense pursuant to § Commonwealth 19.2-264.3:4, with its The notice named rt in bloodstain pattern Tuller as the Commonwealth's In his curriculum vitae, Tuller stated he had tain testified as an expert in b cases. which rt testimony. notice of intent to introduce e interpretation. z v. Commonwealth, 643 S.E.2d 708, 729 (2007). 273 Va. 458, 4 submitted to t Tele two of the cases Tuller However, testified only as a ct witness. ation in six tern inte ified, was a Tuller further stated current member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts (IAB). IAB had expired. However, Tuller's membersh Tuller cIa with the d he attended a crime scene investigation seminar at the Miami Metro-Dade Police Training Institute. However, the Mi Metro3 Police rtment has no record of his attendance. Finally, Tuller r he attended the 3loodstain Users Group S Jepartment of Forensic Science (DFS). such a s prese~t in 2003 nar at the Vi However, DFS nia ed ever nar. The Court rejects these portions of cla reco sented t (I) and (II). The , including the affidavits of Lawlor's counsel and the manuscript record, demonstrates that the alleged inconsistencies in Tuller's curriculum time of his trial. tae were known or available to Lawlor at the Thus, the Court holds that these portions of claims (I) and (II) are barred because t se non-juri cti issues could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, t are not cognizable in a petition v. Parr r a writ of habeas corpus. , 215 Va. 27, 29, 205 S.E.2d 680, 682 (1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1108 (1975). In another portion of claims (I) Tuller lied in about his (II), Lawlor contends trial court when questioned s testimony to rt qualifications. At trial, Tuller repeated his assertion he had testified as an expert in bloodstain interpretation in six cases. homi des, and ern ler also stated all six cases were the defendant in each case was convicted. However, Tuller testified as an expert in only four cases. Additionally, according to Tuller's curriculum vitae, one of the cases in which had testi wounding and not a homicide. identified in his curriculum ed as an expert invol a malicious Finally, of the six cases Tuller tae, one was Lawlor's liminary hearing, which had not, at the time of Tuller's testimony, resulted in a conviction. 4 The Court rejects t se portions of claims (I) and (II). Because the alleged inconsistencies in Tuller's representation of his qualifications were known or available to Lawlor at the t his tr 1, the Court hol (I ) are barred. that these These non-juri of ions of claims (I) and ctional issues could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, thus, are not cognizable in a ition r a writ of habeas corpus. Sla 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. In cla (V), Lawlor argues he was denied the effect assistance of counsel cause counsel failed to investigate and confront Detective Tuller's representations rega lifications to testify as an rt. ng his Lawlor contends thad counsel challenged Tuller's rt qualifications, there is a reasonable probability that t court would have sustained Lawlor's ection to Tuller's certification as an expert witness, that his testimony would have been been convicted of c not testified, to argue floor. luded, and tal murder. he would not have Lawlor argues that had Tuller Commonwealth would have had no evidentiary basis or abducted Orange by moving her from the couch to the Lawlor further contends that without Tuller's testimony, prosecutors would not have been able to rely on his opinions to argue Lawlor was capable of preme tation. Lawlor contends the Commonwealth relied on Tuller's opinion that Lawlor had tried to clean up the crime scene after the murder to demonstrate premeditation. Lawlor further contends the Commonweal Tuller's expert opinion to show the victim was in a vulne position when she was attac Tuller been permitted to testi relied on e lly, Lawlor contends that had as an expert 5 bloodstain pattern interpretation despite counsel's objections, counsel could have used s false statements to impeach h The Court hoI that cIa before the jury. (V) fails to satis the prej prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland v. Wa 466 U.S. 668, 687 (:984). and attached exh Of t ,including Tuller's affidavit ts and the affidavit of Lawlor's trial counsel, demonstrates that errors. The reco ler's curriculum vitae conta multiple six cases in which Tuller claimed to have testifi as an expert in bloodstain tern as an expert in only four. erpretation, he had testified Tuller was not a current member of the IAB, his membership having red years before Lawlor's trial. Tuller attended the Miami-Dade Police Training Institute's Crime Scene Investigat Tuller stated. Seminar January 2003, not January 2002, as The Bloodstain Users Group Seminar Tuller attended in 2003 was not a 40 Tuller's curri r course and was not presented by DFS, as vitae stated. aware of at least one of the Although screpancies in Tuller's curriculum tae before trial, counsel fail to pursue an ade investigation or even ask Tuller about it dur interview with testifi as an e rt in blo been six r cases and had resulted in inconsistent with Tuller's Counsel, however, failed to stion Tuller screpancies. Assuming, without precl their pretrial tain pattern interpretation convictions was clearly incorrect about the e In addition, Tuller's testimony that he had cases and that all six curriculum vitae. or's counsel was iding, that these inaccuracies would have Tuller from testifying as an expert or, had he been permitted to testify as an rt, would have impeached his 6 expertise, Lawlor cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. prove Law Tuller's expert testimony was not cruci r abducted Orange. to The Commonwealth was not required to sent evidence that Lawlor moved Orange from the couch to floor to prove he abducted her. H[T]he physical detention of a person, with the intent to deprive him of his personal liberty, by rce, intimidation, or deception, without any asportat ctim from one place to another, is sufficient." COIillllonwealth, 228 Va. 519, of the Scott v. 526, 323 S.E.2d 572, 576 (1984). The record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates there was overwhelming evidence to prove Lawlor us detain Orange. force to physically Dr. Constance DiAngelo, an Assistant Chief Medical Examiner and forensic pathologist, testified Orange sustained "severe, heavy trauma" when she was stuck in the thirty times with a blunt object. ad and face over Some of the blows left divots in Orange's skull, which was fractured so badly that it opened as if it were hinged. Dr. DiAngelo testified Orange sustained at least seventeen additional fensive wounds to her hands and arms. Combined with the blood in al for at least r lungs, this indicated Orange was rt of attack. The jury did not require Tuller's expert opinion to conclude that Lawlor detained Orange by physical force. In addition, the jury could reasonably infer, without the benefit of Tuller's expert testimony, that Lawlor moved Orange from the couch to the floor. Dr. DiAngelo testifi that the trauma to Orange's head occurred while she was on the couch. discovered lying on the floor, Orange was flat on her back, perpendicu r to the couch, with her feet near the end of the couch where the pool 7 of blood from her head was. The jury could reasonably infer from this evidence that Orange did not llingly move from the couch to the floor. Further, DiAngelo's testimo and the Commonwealth's photographs of the blood-soaked couch left no reasonable doubt that Orange was attacked there. Finally, the Commonwealth did not rely on Tuller's expert testimony to argue premeditation. Rather, to show premeditation, the Commonwealth relied on the location, force and number of ows to Orange; evidence of Lawlor's rational, competent behavior while purchasing and consuming drugs with Michael Johnson, who had cilitated Lawlor's purchase of drugs; Lawlor's ability to plan, as evi victim's ed by his obtaining the ys, traveling to her apartment, and using a back exit to avoid detection a r the murder; the obvious evidence of his ineffectual attempts to clean up the crime scene by placing the bloody pan and broken handle in the kitchen; of hammer and his knowledge of the crime. oody clothes; and s ev disposal s lying about his Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the errors alleged dif claim (V), the result of the proceeding would have been rent. CLAIM (III) In claim (III) (A), Lawlor contends he was denied the right to plead guilty and to have his sentence determined by a jury. contends that under Code § Lawlor 19.2 257, to plead guilty a defendant must waive his right to have a jury determine his sentence. Lawlor argues that when applied to a defendant charged with a capital offense, Code § 19.2-257 violates the Sixth Amendment under 8 decisions in Blakel 542 u. S. 296 (2004), Ri v. Washi Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), and rendi v. New Jerse v. 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it requires the judge to determine the appropriate sentence on the basis of facts not "reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." Blakel 542 U.S. at 303-04. The Court holds that claim (III) (A) non-juri ct is barred because this 1 issue could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, thus, is not of habeas corpus. Sl izable in a petition for a writ 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. In claim (I I I) (B), Lawlor contends he was ed the ef i ve assistance of counsel because counsel failed to protect his right to plead guilty and to have aggravati factors of vileness and future dangerousness, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a sentence of death may be imposed, jury. Lawlor contends counsel should have argued termined by a t Code 257 violates the Sixth Amendment because it requires the § 19.2 to J determine the appropriate sentence on the basis of facts not "reflect in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant." Blakel , 542 U.S. at 303-04. The Court holds that cIa (III) (B) fails to satisfy prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. Under Code § 19.2-264.4, the sentencing ury must consider, among other things, "the circumstances surrounding the offense." the ju y to consider all the evidence, both favorable and 's unfavorable, fore fixing punishment. St r v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 260, 275 76, 257 S.E.2d 808, 819 (1979). Lawlor had been permitt to ad 9 It is Thus, even if Ity and have his sentence ermined by a jury, the sentencing jury necessarily would have had access to the evidence presented in the guilt phase of Lawlor's trial, including the evidence adduced at trial of the brutal nature of Lawlor's cr s. ea would have respons n addition, although Lawlor argues a guilty rmitted him to show remorse and accept ility in front of the jury, the record, trial transcr , demonstrates that counsel effect as if Lawlor had entered a guilty plea. through the including the ly proceeded From opening statement of trial, Lawlor's trial counsel conceded Lawlor had murdered Orange. The record further est crimes were extremely brutal, t t t significantly, that immediately a ishes that the victim suffer r the murder Lawlor insisted had no knowledge of the crimes and attempted to cast su his neighbor, and t a icion on er his DNA was discovered on the victim, Lawlor insisted he was being framed. Under the circumstances, Lawlor cannot show that had he been permitted to plead guilty and have his sentence ermined by a jury, the ju a different outcome. would have reached Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the errors alleged in claim (III) (8), the result of the proceeding would have been different. CLAIM (IV) In cIa (IV) (A) a port of claim (IV) (C), Lawlor contends he was denied a fair trial because t four of its f prosecution used peremptory strikes to remove all persons of Hispanic and Pacific-Island ethnicity from the jury venire and the trial court failed to ensure those strikes were not based upon the ethnicity of jurors. 10 The Court holds that claim (IV) (A) and this portion of claim ( V) (C) are rred because these non-jurisdictional issues could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, thus, are not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Sla 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. rtion of claim (IV) (C), Lawlor In claim (IV) (B) and another contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the Co~monwealthls removal of all rsons of Hispanic and Pacific-Island ethnicity from the jury venire. The Co~monwealth used peremptory strikes to remove G Alvarez, Fredericka Wall, Vene a Fernandez, and Dave Lunasco from the venire of twenty-four qualif jurors. Alvarez, Wall, and Fernandez were Lawlor all s that only members of the panel of Hispanic ethnicity, and that Lunasco was the only person of Paci c-Island ethni ty. Lawlor contends that the removal of all spanic and Pacific-Island jurors was prima facie evidence of discrimination, and that counsel unreasonably f led to object to their exclusion. The Court holds that claim (IV) (B) and this portion of claim (IV) (C) satisfy neither the performance nor t the two rt test enunci applicable to 11 in Strickland. The principles s of racial motivation for the exercise of remptory strikes on a jury panel in ted States Supreme Court in (1986), and s prejudice prong of ially were set out by the son v. Kentuc 476 U.S. 79 equently have been refined in decisions of this Court. 11 As the Court s stated previously: When a defendant makes a Batson challen to the use of a peremptory strike, he must show that the individual "is a member of a cognizable racial group," and "make a prima facie showing that the remptory strike was made on racial grounds." Mere exclusion of members of a particular race by usi peremptory strikes "does not self establish such a pr facie case under Batson." To establish a prima fa e case, the defendant must also "identify facts and circumstances that raise an inference that potential jurors were excluded based on their race." r v. Commonwealth 271 Va. 362, 407, (2006) (internal citations omit 626 S.E.2d 383, 412 ) {citing - - - - - - = " - v. Yarbr - Commonwealth, 262 Va. 388, 394, 551 S.E.2d 306, 309 (2001) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 96), and Jackson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 423, 436, 587 S.E.2d 532, 542 Once a to the (quot fendant makes a pr Co~~onwealth striking (2003)). juror." facie case, the burden ifts "to produce race-neutral explanations for ---"- , 271 Va. at 407, 626 S.E.2d at 412 Jackson, 266 Va. at 436, 587 S.E.2d at 542). defendant can then argue the Commonwealth's pretext for unconstitutional discr nation. The lanations were a Id. Lawlor has failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination that counsel should have recognized and llenged, and that the trial court would have accepted. Lawlor asserts that the Commonwealth's perempto i~ exclusion of all though strikes resulted rsons of Hispanic and Pacific-Island ethnicity from the jury, he proffers no basis for his assertio~ Lhat the strikes were racially motivated other than observi that Commonwealth were either of four of the five jurors struck by 12 Island ethnicity. Hispanic or Pacif Lawlor does not assert that the jurors the Commonwealth chose to strike were members of the same race as either Lawlor or the victim, or identify any other "'facts and rcumstances that raise an inference that potential jurors were excluded based on their race. , .. 407, 626 S.E.2d at 412 S.E.2d at 309). ~hus, (quoting Ya -'=-=':"=":'~-"--=---L:"::' Jun r .::...:::::.:.:..:~= 271 Va. at 262 Va. at 394, 551 Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was ficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding wou have been different. C:i.,AIM (VI) In a portion of claim (VI), Law ffective assistance of counsel because counsel W. was denied the contends il to ask Dr. exander Morton, Jr., a psychopharmacologist appointed by the trial court to assist Lawlor, to opine whether consumption of "the better part of a case of beer and at least two to three eight-balls of crack cocaine" would render a person incapable of and premeditation. object inadmiss to s Lawlor contends t 1 ration when the Commonwea testimony and the trial court ruled it was le, trial counsel unreasonably agreed not to present such evidence without first arguing it was admissible. In support of is claim, Lawlor has provided an affidavit from Morton in which he states his opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific ~ The Court rejects Lawlor's assertion that he is not required to show prejudice under Strickland. Counsel's failure to object to the Commonwealth's peremptory strikes is not a "structural error." See Jackson v. Warden, 271 Va. 434, 436, 627 S.E.2d 776, 781 (2006) . 13 certainty, that Lawlor would not have been able to form the necessary intent to premeditate after ingesti that quantity of alcohol and cocaine. ion of claim (VI) satisfies Court holds that this two-part neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of t The proffered expert opinion, that test enunciated in Strickla time of the killing, was properly Lawlor did not premeditate at ruled inadmissible because it went to the "precise or ult fact issue" in the case and "to have admitted the opinion would have invaded the province of the jury." 683, Wa v. Commonwealth 219 Va. 696, 251 S.E.2d 202, 210 (1979) (internal quotation marks and citations omitt In ). tion, the record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates that on the eveni Michae Johnson purchas ten three "eight-balls," or approximate and a half grams, of coca and that together they consumed and nine grams. between ei before the murder, Lawlor and Johnson testifi consumed all of the first and second "ei had consumed about two grams. he and Lawlor -ball," of which Johnson Of the third eight-ball, of whi son and Lawlor consumed half, Johnson testified Lawlor had consumed about a gram of the cocaine and that he had consumed less than one gram. Johnson testifi he and Lawlor been king beer, but was unable to say how much beer Lawlor had actually consumed. Thus, the evidence established that Lawlor consumed approximately six grams of cocaine and an unknown quantity of beer. Therefore, the proffered opinion, which assumed Lawlor consumed "the better part of a case of beer" of cocaine, was not based on facts in 14 between seven and ten dence and would not have been admissible. See S on v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 557, 565-66, 318 S.E.2d 386, 391 (1984) Further, the record, including the trial transcr demonstrates that Morton testified as to the hypothetical effect that consumption of large quantities of cocaine and alcohol would have on a consumi son in Lawlor's position. alcohol and cocaine toget Morton testified that r negat ly impacts an individual's ability to think rationally and make that the consumption of alar isions and amount of alcohol and cocaine could olent behavior and cause an individual to become cause "unpredictable, impulsive, and unstable." rson consuming three Morton that a a half grams of cocaine over the course of an eight hour period would expe ence profound psychiatric symptoms, including inability to think clearly, paranoia, and aggression, and these symptoms would increase at higher doses, though the ef Lawlor has fail s would vary depending on the individual. to demonstrate that counsel's Thus, rformance was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proce ng would have been different. In another portion of cia (VI), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel fai to provide Morton with an opportunity to interview Lawlor before trial. Lawlor contends that had Morton interviewed him, Morton would have been able to opine that Lawlor's ior drug use and addiction affected his reaction to the drugs he consumed in the hours before the murder and "further diminished his ability to premeditate and 1 rate." Lawlor contends this opinion would 15 have opened the door to other evidence of his history of drug use and addiction, which the trial court had found to be inadmissible in the guilt phase of the trial. (VI) The Court holds that this portion of cIa satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. suscept Morton's opinion about Lawlor's ility to the effects of the drugs he consumed before murder would not have opened the door to evidence of his history of drug use and addiction. An expert may not relate hearsay ev to the jury when providing his opinion testimony. Wr Commonwealth, 245 Va. 177, 197, 427 S.E.2d 379, 392 on other rounds, 512 U.S. 1217 Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, fa Is to proffer any 416, (1994); see also 384 S.E.2d 757, v. (1993), vacated Buc~anan v. 773 (1989). Lawlor dence Morton could have gleaned from an interview with him that would have been admissible. T~us, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was defi ent or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would ~ave been fferent. CLAIMS (VII) & (VIII) In claim (VIII) (A), Lawlor contends the jury instructions were defective because t~ey fail to define specific intent, instructed the jury they could infer Lawlor's intent from the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and fai between premeditated to distinguish rst degree murder and first degree murder in the commission of rape or abduction. The Court holds that claim (VIII) (A) is barred because is non-jurisdictional issue could have been raised at trial and on 16 direct appeal and, thus, is not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In a Sla on, 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. was denied rtion of claim (VIII) (B), Lawlor contends the effective assistance of counsel because counsel fail request instructions de to ning specific intent, stating that ent differs from general intent, and explaining the specific two. difference between instructions, Lawlor contends that without such jurors would not have understood that they had to find that Lawlor had the specific intent to kill Orange, and it was not sufficient to find he had the general intent to do an act that resulted in her death, before convicting him of capital murder or premeditated first degree murder. The Court holds that this portion of claim (VIII) satis does not two-part test enunciated in the performance prong of Strickland. (B) Generally, courts now disfavor instructing jurors on specific versus general intent and the difference between the two. ed States v. Perez See 1994) (not 43 F.3d 1131, 1138 instructions distinguishing between (7th r. cific general intent are not as helpful to juries as those stating "pre se mental state required for the particular cr =s~t=a~t~e=s__~.-=~~=l=i~n, v 26 F.3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir. 1994) instructing jury in terms of specific intent because of t "); Unit (noting s been disfavored confusing and ambiguous nature of such instructions); see also Qnited States v~ Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1059 (5th Cir. 1996) (no error in failing to give instruction defining specific intent where t al court instruct jury on element of intent and clearly defined the term "knowingly"); cf. Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 7 (2006) 17 (recogniz g lithe movement away from the traditional dichotomy of general versus specific intent and toward a more specifically defined hierarchy of culpable mental states") . Here, the record, including the trial transcript and the jury instructions, demonstrates the jury was instructed that to find Lawlor guilty of capital or premeditated first degree murder, they had to find the killing was Ilful, deliberate, and premeditated. The jury was further instructed: will 1, deliberate, and premeditated means a specific intent to kill adopted at some time before the killing but which need not exist for any particular length of time. An intent to kill may be formed only a moment before the fatal act is committed, provided the accused has time to think and did intend to 11. This instruction properly instructed the jury about the requisite intent necessary to support a finding of premeditated murder. Any additional definition of the term specific intent, which was itself used to define "willful, deliberate, and premeditat , .. would have been redundant and potentially confusing, and counsel was not deficient for failing to make a contrary argument. has failed to demonstrate that counsel's Thus, .wawlor rformance was deficient. In another portion of claim (VIII) (B), Lawlor contends he was denied the ef ive assistance of counsel because counsel failed to adequately object to a jury struction that instructed the jury they could infer Lawlor's intent from the natural and probable consequences of s acts. Lawlor contends that although this instruction has been approved by this Court, it was improper in this case because it suggested the jury could determine it was Lawlor's purpose to kill Orange because the natural and probable 18 consequence of his conduct was to cause her death. Lawlor argues this blurs the distinction between specific intent to kill and general intent to do an act which, while not intended to do so, results in death. The Court holds that this portion of cIa satis (VI I I) (B) does not the performance prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. 7he natural and probable consequence of striking Orange 47 times with a blunt object, principally in the head, was her death. require, t 7he instruction properly jury to in rmitted, but did not r from the fact that when Lawlor struck her 47 times with a blunt object, he intended to kill her. was not ineffective for Counsel iling to object to this instruction. Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient. In another portion of claim (VIII) (B) and a portion of claim (VII), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to ask that the instructions on first degree murder use the terms "premeditated first degree murder" and "felony first degree murder" to dif rentiate between premeditated first degree murder and first degree murder in the commission of rape, attempted rape, or abduction. Lawlor contends the instructions given were confusing because they used the term "first murder" to describe two different theories under which Lawlor could be convicted of rst degree murder. Lawlor argues the lack of a descriptive label in the instructions could have confused the jury because under Virginia law, voluntary intoxication is a defense only to premeditated murder, and not to felony first degree murder. He further argues that the lack of a 19 descript label could also have confused the jury because in closing argument counsel conceded Lawlor was guilty of first degree murder. Although counsel argued Lawlor was incapable of premeditation and that the murder occurred during an altercation, the ury could have been confused and assumed couns premeditation because the instruction was conceding not clearly label different theories of first degree murder. The Court holds that these portions of claims (VI I I) (B) and (VII) do not satisfy the performance prong of the two-part test enunci in Strickland. The record, incl transcript, demonstrates that ng the trial jurors were instruct The defendant is charged with the cr of capital murder in the commission of or subsequent to or attempted rape. The Commonwealth must beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of that cr Genevieve 11 (1) That the defendant and rate, , del (2 ) That the killing was will and premeditated; and rson in the (3 ) That the killing was of a commission of, or subsequent to rape or attempted rape. If you nd the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the above elements of the crime as charged, then you shall find the fendant guilty capital murder in the commission of or subsequent to rape or attempted rape and shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence is heard by you. If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant killed Genevieve Orange and that the killing occurred in the 20 co~mission of, or subsequent to rape or attempted rape, bJt that the killing was not willful, deliberate and premeditated, then you shall find the defendant guilty of first degree murder and shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence has been heard by you. If you find from the dence that the Commonwealth has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing occurred in the commission of, or subsequent to rape or attempted but the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) (2 ) (3 ) That the defendant killed Genevieve Orange; and rate, That the killing was willful, del and premeditated; and That the killing was malicious, then you shall find the defendant guilty of first degree mJrder and shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence has been heard by you. If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed Genevieve Orange and that the killing was malicious but that the Commonwealth has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated and was not in the commission of, or subsequent to rape or attempted rape, then you shall find the defendant guilty of second degree murder but shall not fix the punishment until your verdict has been returned and further evidence is heard by you. If you find that the Co~~onwealth has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the crimes listed above, then you 11 find the defendant not guilty. The =ury received a nearly identical instruction on the charge of capital murder in commission of abduction with intent to 21 defile. These instructions were not confusing. They clearly delineated the distinctions between capital murder; premeditated first degree murder; first degree murder in the commission of a rape, attempted rape or abduction; and second degree murder. iling to argue to the contrary. Counsel was not ineffective for Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient. In another portion of claim (VII), Lawlor contends he was denied the ef ctive assistance of counsel because counsel iled to realize, until the end of the guilt phase of the trial, that Lawlor cou murder even if the jury be convicted of first de found he was incapable of premeditation, if the jury found he killed Orange in the commission of rape or abduction. Lawlor argues that because counsel failed to understand the applicable law, counsel based Lawlor's guilt-phase Lawlor was so intoxicated at the t fense on the theory that of the offenses that he was incapable of premeditation. The Court holds that this portion of claim (VII) fails to satisfy the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. Lawlor ils to identify any defense theory that counsel could have, but did not, argue because of counsel's alleged failure to recognize that Lawlor could be convicted of first degree felony murder, or to show that such a successful. fense would have been See Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 1081, 1089 (2014) (per curiam) (even where counsel makes a mistake of law, petitioner challenging a criminal conviction still bears the burden of showing a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's error, the fact finder would have had a reasonable doubt as to 22 petitioner's guilt). Thus, or has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been dif In another portion of cIa deni rent. (VII), Lawlor contends he was the effective assistance of counsel because counsel focused closing argument almost exclusively on voluntary intoxication and asked the jury to find him guilty of first degree murder without differentiating between premeditated first de felony murder. murder and rst Lawlor argues this suggested to the jury that counsel was conceding t evidence proved premeditation. The Court holds that this portion of claim (VII) satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. The record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates that counsel argued during closing argument that Lawlor's crimes were not premeditated and jury would not have reasonably believed counsel was conceding the evidence was sufficient to prove premeditation. Thus, ~awlor failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was de has ent or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. CLAIM (IX) In a portion of claim (IX), ~awlor contends he was de effective assistance of counsel because counsel the iled to move for a mistrial when jurors overheard portions of a bench conference. Lawlor contends that in the guilt phase of the trial during counsel's cross examination of Detective Brian Colligan, counsel questioned why Colligan initially became su 23 icious of Law The trial court called counsel to a bench conference, during which the prosecutor noted the answer to counsel's prior abduction conviction. stion included Lawlor's The trial court told Lawlor's counsel he was about to cause a mistrial if he pursued the question and that the court was "not going to declare it if you do it." Lawlor contends defense counsel should have asked for a mistrial at that po ,because the jury could hear both the prosecutor's statement and the trial court's admonishment of Lawlor's counsel. of this claim, Lawlor prof In support rs the affidavit of Michael Chick, Jr., a member of Lawlor's defense team. Chick avers that the courtroom was small and that he could hear portions of most of the bench conferences, even from his position in the back of the courtroom, especially those that were "heated." Chick avers that during the conference about Colligan's testimony, he heard the t al court advise counsel "in an angry tone," that he "was not going to a mistrial if [counsel] continued with his line of questioning." Chick further avers that he told counsel that he heard "that conversation, and that it was likely that the jurors could hear it too." The Court holds that this portion of claim (IX) satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. Lawlor fails to proffer any support for his allegation that the jury overheard the prosecutor mention Lawlor's prior abduction conviction. Although Chick avers he overheard portions of many bench conferences, especially those that were heated, and that he specifically heard the trial court tell counsel he was not going to grant a mistrial, Chick does not state that he heard the prosecutor's remark or provide any reason to 24 believe the jury heard it. Lawlor does not suggest the prosecutor's voice was loud or "heated" when he made the cOJTh.'1lent, which appears to have been made specifically to prevent any dence of the prior conviction from being inadvertently introduced during the guilt phase of the t a l . In addition, while "[rJulings made in words or manner indicating antagonism or resentment toward counsel may convey the impression that the feeling inc v. s also counsel's client," Commonwealth, 190 Va. 48, 56, 55 S.E.2d 446, 450 Lhe record in the present case, including the t (1949), al transcripts, does not demonstrate such "antagonism or resentment" in the trial court's admonishment of counsel during this bench conference. Assuming the jury heard the exchange, the tr 1 judge's warning that counsel was about to cause a mistrial, which the court would not grant, likely suggested to the jury the court's spleasure with the possibility that counsel was about to do something that would negatively impact Lawlor or that counsel's behavior could potentially negatively impact Lawlor. Further, the trial court instructed the jury at the beginning of the trial that they were to base their verdict solely on the instruction of law and the evidence presented at trial, that "no statement or ruling or remark might make from the bench is intended in any way to indicate to you what my personal opinion might be," that conference was to ensure that the only e purpose of a bench dence received by the jury was that "which is appropriate and proper under our laws," and that the jury should not hold such conferences against either the Comrnonweal th or the defendant. "It is presumed that a jury will follow the instructions given by the trial court." 25 Muhamrnad, 274 Va. at 18, 646 S.E.2d at 195 (citation omitted). Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. In another portion of claim (IX), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to move for a mistrial when jurors overheard portions of a second bench conference. Lawlor contends that while discussing last minute changes to jury tructions, the trial court loudly admonished counsel, stating "[y]ou know, you've had this case for two years, and we're now sting here-this is the best you can do with jury tructions?" Lawlor contends that during this conference the trial court further admonished counsel for failing to include an approved instruction with the wr ten instructions presented to the court that morning, saying, "I gave you that pile back yesterday and said return those instructions to me." Lawlor alleges that these comments were audible to everyone in the courtroom, that they were prejudicial to him because they suggested defense counsel was unprepared and uninformed, and that defense counsel should have asked for a mistrial. In support of this claim, Lawlor relies on the affidavits of Chick, Meghan Shapiro, and Thomas Walsh, also members of Lawlor's defense team, who each aver that they heard the trial court loudly and sharply reprimand counsel. The Court holds that this portion of claim (IX) satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. Assuming the jury heard the trial 26 court's comments, Lawlor does not allege that the jury heard the rest of the bench conference and does not articulate how the jury would have known whether the judge was admonishing defense counsel or the prosecutor. In addition, the trial court had p ously instructed the jury that t y were to base their verdict solely on the instructions and the dence, and that "no statement or ruling or remark I might make from the bench is intended in any way to indicate to you what my personal opinion might be." "It is presumed that a jury will follow the instructions given by the trial court." Muhammad, 274 Va. at 18, 646 S.E.2d at 195 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Lomax, 87 F.3d 959, Cir. 1996) 962 (8th (appellate court assumed that, even if jury overheard bench conference, they disregarded the information in compliance with the judge's instruction directing jury to consider only evidence presented at t a l l . Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have n different. CLAIM (X) In claim (X), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because, during the sentencing phase, counsel opened the door to the admission of evidence of Lawlor's abuse of his former fianc ,Amanda Godlove. Lawlor argues the Commonwealth elicited testimony from Godlove that Lawlor had abducted her in 1998, a cr for which he had been convicted, but did not elicit any testimony regarding Lawlor's relationship with or violence toward Godlove prior to the abduction. On cross- nation, Lawlor's counsel asked Godlove about her relationship with Lawlor 27 prior to abduction, eliciting testimony from Godlove that Lawlor had anger control issues, Godlove only agreed to marry Lawlor because she was afraid to refuse his proposal, and she ended their relationship because she was afraid of Lawlor. On redirect, the Commonwealth elicited testimony about the tenor of Lawlor's entire relationship with Godlove, including specific acts of violence toward Godlove. Lawlor's counsel objected to this testimony, but the trial court found counsel had opened door for the admission of the evidence through cross-examination. Lawlor contends this evidence, which included testimony that Lawlor sometimes went into a "white hot rage," that he had thrown an ashtray at Godlove, hit her, grabbed her, and twice choked her to the point of unconsciousness, would not have been admitted if not for counsel's error and that but for the admission of the dence, the Commonwealth could not have proved the aggravating factor of future dangerousness and the jury would not have sentenced Lawlor to death. The Court holds claim (X) fails to satisfy the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. The record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates that at the t the testimony complained of was admitted, Godlove had already testi that prior to the abduction, but after she and Lawlor had ended their relationship, Lawlor called her at work and approached her office, and as a result of Lawlor's behavior she felt the need to have two men escort "for [her] safety." r to her car every night when she left work Godlove testi established a routine whereby s ed she and her mother had would phone her mother every night when she left work, and her mother knew how long it would 28 ed then take Godlove to get home. Godlove would again call her mother as she approached the house, and upon arriving home Godlove would pull into the garage but stay in her car, with the windows rolled up, the doors locked, and r hand on garage door until the door had her car. remote control for the ly closed before getting out of These measures were to ensure Godlove's safety. Godlove testified that on the evening of the abduction she had followed this routine, but when she got near r house she noticed a car which was not normally there and which matched the description she had of Lawlor's car. Godlove then called her mother and asked her to meet her at the door. the car followed her. home. Then she drove past her home to see if When it did not, she turned around and went She pulled into her garage and waited in locked, windows rolled up, hand on the the door in the rear view mirror. r car, doors ge door opener, watching Before the door closed, Lawlor rolled under it and approached the car, demanding to talk with Godlove. When she told him to leave, he got very angry and started banging on the car. Godlove's mother saw what was happening and told Lawlor she was going to call the police. According to Godlove's testimony "normally, that would be enough of a deterrent" but on this night Lawlor said he did not care. opened t Godlove's mother garage door and motioned to Godlove to drive away. Godlove attempt When to do so, Lawlor climbed onto the hood of the car and began hitting and kicking the windshield until he managed to put a hole in it. Lawlor reached through the windshield, turned off the car, opened the door, dragged Godlove out, threw her into his car, and drove away. Eventually, Lawlor's rage dissipated and he freed Godlove after she feigned a severe asthma attack. 29 Based upon this testimony, the jury knew Godlove was afraid of Lawlo~ long before he abducted her. Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. CLAIM (XI) In claim (XI), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to elicit from Lawlor's therapist, Mary Fisher, evidence that Lawlor had to her that he had been sexually abused by his father. of this claim, Lawlor p~ovides In support an affidavit from Fisher in which she avers she is a nurse practitioner and mental health issues. ed cializing in psychological She treated Lawlor in the 11 of 2005, and she diagnosed Lawlor with poly-substance abuse, poly-substance dependence, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of being the victim of childhood physical and sexual abuse. Fisher avers that Lawlor disclosed to her in their initial meetings that he had been physically and sexually abused multip he had been sexually abused by his father. times and that sher further avers that Lawlor suffered from flashbacks of being sexually abused by his father and of his sister being sexually abused by their father. Fisher further avers that she provided this information to Lawlor's defense team prior to trial. Lawlor contends that had the jury known he had been sexually abused by his father, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would not have sentenced him to death. The Court holds claim (XI) satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. The record, including the trial transcript, 30 demonstrates that Fisher testified on Lawlor's behalf during the sentencing phase of his trial. Fisher testified that she had diagnosed Lawlor with PTSD, that such a diagnosis re red at least one qualifying traumatic event in the patient's past, and that she had based her diagnosis of Lawlor, in part, on his "revelation of both physical and probable history of sexual abuse" of "himself and family members." When asked what that revelation of probable sexual abuse was, Fisher responded that the revelation was "innuendo that he also had a history of sexual abuse himself, but I don't I he ever specifically said that at that point until we terminated treatment." Fisher further testified that in her init I meetings with Lawlor there was some "reference made to possible abuse by a peer, but was not specifically addressed in the short time that we had to talk." sher went on to explain that when dealing with a new patient it was important to ask open-ended questions and establish a trusting relationship and that it is not unusual for a patient to initially deny having a history of sexual abuse. Fisher elaborated that she would not have expected Lawlor to immediately disclose all of the sexual abuse he suffered. Fisher further testified that Lawlor had specifically described flashbacks involving traumatic events with peers, and "violent incidents between he [sic] and his dad and his sister that he was involved in." Finally, Fisher testified that toward the end of Lawlor's treatment, which lasted several weeks and spanned four to five sessions, she had referred Lawlor for inpatient treatment, for which he had en refused, and that during the intake procedure Lawlor reported he had a history of physical and sexual abuse by 31 someone he lived with after he ran away from home at t sixteen. age of Thus, despite being asked numerous open-ended questions by Lawlor's counsel, Fisher's testimony established that during her treatment of Lawlor, he never specifically stated he had been sexually abused, although he had suggested that might be the case, and that his suggestions of abuse involved peers, not his father. The first direct report of sexual abuse, according to Fisher's testimony, was in Lawlor's intake report. To the extent this testimony differs from Fisher's affidavit, this Court need not decide which is more credible. Counsel could reasonably have determined, based on Fisher's testimony at trial, that if asked directly if Lawlor had ever reported to her that he had been sexual~y "No." abused by his father, Fisher's response would have been, As Lawlor concedes, he had repeatedly attempted throughout the course of the trial to establish that he had been sexually abused by his father, and counsel could reasonably have determined that asking this question would have been more detrimental than helpful to his case. Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. CLAIM (XII) In claim (XII), Lawlor contends he was denied the effect assistance of counsel because counsel failed to present testimony from Dr. James Hopper, a clinical psychologist with expertise in the long-term effects of childhood abuse, who was appointed by the trial court to assist Lawlor. Lawlor contends that Dr. Hopper's testimony should have been presented as part of his mitigation 32 evidence to put Lawlor's prior bad acts and Orange's murder into context by showing Lawlor's criminal acts were rooted in the trauma he suffered during his childhood and adolescence. Lawlor further contends that Dr. Hopper's testimony should have been presented to show Lawlor's mental health and substance abuse treatment programs had been ineffective because they fail to address his underlying mental health issues, and to support the central mitigation theme that Lawlor was an abused and neglected child who turned to drugs and alcohol, that his violent acts had been the result of his addictions, and that he should not be sentenced to death. Lawlor proffers that Dr. Hopper would have testified the abuse and neglect Lawlor suffered as a child negatively affected his ability to plan, make decisions, and regulate his emotions and behavior. Dr. Hopper would have testified that Lawlor's history of neglect and abuse and the resulting behavioral and interpersonal deficits led Lawlor to addiction and a cycle of sobriety and relapse, often involving criminal act ty and incarceration, and this cycle was exacerbated by the lack of treatment for his underlying issues. Lawlor her proffers Dr. Hopper would have testified Lawlor's cocaine and alcohol binge on the night of the murder was an inevitable result of his initial success maintaining sobriety and a good job, which led him to distance himself from his support network and stop attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. When his grandmother and a friend subsequently died, Lawlor had completely isolated himself from his support network and began a downward spiral. The Court holds claim (XII) satisfies neither the performance nor the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in 33 Strickland. The Un ed States Supreme Court has held that, in determining whether a petitioner has established prejudice based upon counsel's failure to present additional mitigation evidence, a reviewing court should consider whether a competent attorney, aware of the evidence, would have introduced it at sentencing and whether, had the jury been confronted with the evidence, there is a reasonable probability it would have returned a different sentence. v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15, 20 (2009). In evaluating this second question, a reviewing court must consider all t relevant evidence the jury would have considered, not just the proffered additional mitigation evidence but also any rebuttal evidence the prosecution might have offered, and determine if the petitioner has shown "a reasonable probability that the jury would have rejected a capital sentence after it weighed the entire body of mitigating evidence." Id. Here, the record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates that much of the mitigating evidence Lawlor faults counsel for failing to introduce was cumulative of the substantial mitigation evidence already introduced. Many witnesses, including Lawlor's family members, probation officers, and Mary Fisher, presented evidence that Lawlor was an abused and neglected child who turned to drugs and alcohol. Dr. Morton, Lawlor's expert psychopharmacologist, and Fisher presented evidence that individuals who suffer childhood trauma and have untreated psychiatric problems often turn to drugs and alcohol to "self icate," and that Lawlor's mental health and substance abuse treatment programs had been ineffective because they failed to address his underlying mental health issues. 34 Morton and John Sullivan, the clinical coordinator for S that Lawlor completed just months s to Recovery, a program fore he killed Orange, presented evidence that Lawlor's addictions had precipitated numerous violent acts. Morton and Sullivan also presented evidence regarding the cycle of addiction, sobriety, and relapse, and Morton explained how such cycles may be aggravated by untreated underlying psychiatric problems. The cumulative mitigating evidence Lawlor contends counsel should have introduced would not have Lawlor. §~~ i<L._ at 22 (finding no prej udice where ded itioner's proffered mitigating evidence "was merely cumulative" of the mitigating evidence counsel had presented) . In addition, the record, including the trial transcript, demonstrates that some of the mitigating evidence Lawlor faults counsel for failing to adduce would have contradicted mitigating evidence that Lawlor had already introduced. Lawlor's mitigation witnesses testified Lawlor began to discontinue his participation in AA meetings as soon as he graduated from Steps to Recovery and his participation was no longer required. died in July 2008, however, ci When Lawlor's friend e of support he had generated while at Steps to Recovery was still available to him. that Members of rcle gave Lawlor a ride to the memorial, called and encouraged him to go to AA meetings, and even went to Lawlor's place of employment to persuade him to do so. Steps to Recovery encouraged graduates to visit and held alumni nights once a month. Friends and members of Lawlor's church remained available to and supportive of him. The proffered expert testimony that Lawlor no longer had a support network available to him would have contradicted his own witnesses. 35 Further, the additional mitigation evidence Lawlor contends should have been introduced would have opened the door to rebuttal evidence from Dr. Hagan, who had examined Lawlor in accordance with Code § 19.2-264.3:1. The record, including Dr. Hagan's report, demonstrates that Dr. Hagan's rebuttal testimony would have been potentially damaging to Lawlor. It was Dr. Hagan's opinion that Lawlor was not suffering from severe emotional or mental disturbance at the time of the murder, and that Lawlor was fully able to apprec e the criminal nature of his acts and had the capacity to control his conduct, as evidenced by Lawlor's deliberate and strategic behavior in the hours leading up to the murder. It was Dr. Hagan's opinion that Lawlor's behavior toward others, especially women, was "entirely self-centered and devoid of empathy," that Lawlor appeared to have no real concept of guilt or remorse and had a "poor reputation for truthfulness," even among his biggest supporters, and that Lawlor often responded to rejection with "sudden, unpredictable and serious violence." Hagan noted that Lawlor had 40 or more se Dr. s, programs, interventions, and treatment providers, as well as prescriptive care available to him between 1978 and 2008, and that turned down or failed to appear for other services. either Finally, it was Dr. Hagan's opinion that while Lawlor's "dreadful developmental circumstances" contributed to his difficulties and shaped his character, interpersonal problem-solving ability, and patterns of emotional regulation, those circumstances did not cause his attack on Orange. Cons ring all the relevant evidence the jury would have had before it, including the Commonwealth's rebuttal evidence, Lawlor 36 cannot show a reasonable probability the jury would have rejected a capital sentence had counsel submitted the proffered mitigation evidence. Nor, given the cumulative or conflicting nature of much of the evidence and the damaging nature of the Commonwealth's rebuttal evidence, was it unreasonable for counsel to decide not to submit this evidence. Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient or that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. CLAIM (XIII) In claim (XIII) (A) and a portion of claim (XIII) (C), Lawlor contends that, during the guilt phase of his trial, the evidence was in dispute whether he raped or attempted to rape Orange. Lawlor contends the jury verdict, under the indictment cha ng him alternately with capital murder in the commission of rape or attempted rape, left the dispute unresolved. Lawlor argues that because the question was unresolved, the prosecutor's questions and argument during the sentencing phase of the t Lawlor had raped Orange were improper. al asserting that Lawlor contends this confused the jurors and led them to presume he had raped Orange and to improperly base their sentencing decision on that presumption. The Court rejects claim (XIII) (A) (XIII) (C) because this non-ju and this portion of claim sdictional issue could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. thus, Sl is not cognizable on ---";~- 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. In claim (XIII) (B) and a portion of claim (XIII) (C), Lawlor contends he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because 37 counsel failed to object to the prosecutor's improper questions and argument during the sentencing phase of trial. Lawlor contends that the prosecutor's questions to Lawlor's mitigation witnesses and closing argument improperly asserted that Lawlor had raped Orange, and that whether Lawlor had completed the rape was a question left unresolved by the jury's verdict. Therefore, Lawlor argues, any assertion that he was guilty of a completed rape was improper, and he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to object because the jury was likely to infer counsel conceded that he was guilty of rape. The Court holds that claim (XI I I) (B) and this portion of claim (XIII) (C) fail to satisfy the prejudice prong of the two-part test enunciated in Strickland. "Under Code § 18.2-31(5) willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing is capital murder if committed in the cowmission of or subsequent to either rape or attempted rape." Lawlor, 285 Va. at 222, 738 S.E.2d at 866. The jury was permitted to find Lawlor guilty if it found either predicate. at 222, 738 S.E.2d at 867. Id. The sentencing phase jury was composed of the same jurors who convicted Lawlor during the guilt phase of tal. Consequently, the jurors knew during the sentencing phase which predicate they had found in the guilt phase. Lawlor therefore cannot establish that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's references to rape. Thus, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate that, but for counsel's alleged errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 38 CLAIMS (XIV) & (XV) In claim (XIV) and a portion of claim (XV), Lawlor contends the cumulative effect of counsel's deficient performance undermines confidence in the jurors' decision. The Court holds that claim (XIV) and this portion of claim (XV) are without merit. As addressed previously, Lawlor has failed to demonstrate prejud as a result of counsel's alleged errors. "Having rejected each of itioner's individual claims, there is no support for the proposition that such actions when considered collectively have deprived petitioner of his constitutional to effective assistance of counsel." I State Prison, 267 Va. denied, 542 U.S. ght Lenz v. Warden of the Sussex 318, 340, 593 S.E.2d 292, 305, cert. 953 (2004). In the remaining portion of claim (XV), Lawlor contends the cumulative effect of trial errors produced a trial that was fundamentally unfair, thereby depr ng him of his constitutional right to due process. The Court holds that this portion of claim (XV) is barred because this non-jurisdictional issue could have been raised at trial and on direct appeal and, thus, is not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Sl 215 Va. at 29, 205 S.E.2d at 682. Upon consideration whereof, Lawlor's motion to make the joint appendix from the direct appeal part of the record is granted. Lawlor's motions for discovery, for expert assistance, and for an evidentiary hearing are denied. 39 Upon consideration of Lawlor!s motion to strike the Warden!s evidence and the Warden's motions to stri the motions are denied. Lawlor's affidavits, The exhibits and affidavits are considered pursuant to the appropriate evidentiary rules. Upon consideration of the Warden!s motions to amend the motion to dismiss and to file a supplemental affidavit, the motions are granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the respondent shall recover from petitioner the costs expended in his defense herein. This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports. Respondent's costs: Attorney's fee $50.00 A Copy, Teste: Clerk 40

Security Administration and Management at the CIA organization

23, March 2015

Topic:Security Administration and Management at the CIA organization
I. Introduction
The CIA is a well recognized security organization that serves many security purposes. The firm has the role and responsibility of ensuring that the American citizens are safe from any domestic and international threats.
A. Security Vision and Mission
The vision of the CIA is to be an unmatched agency in its core capabilities as well as functioning as a team which is highly integrated into the Intelligence community. One Community is its slogan. The CIA's mission is to support the President, the National Security Council, and all officials who make and execute the U.S. national security policy by providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics; and by conducting counterintelligence activities, special activities, and other functions related to foreign intelligence and national security, as directed by the President (Darling, p.14).
Professional Essay Writers
Get your grade or your money backusing our Essay Writing Service!
Essay Writing Service
The CIA's mission is to be the best and the nations first in the line of defense. Accomplishing what has not and cannot be accomplished by others is their aim. The ways used by the CIA in meeting their goals an achieving their mission include the collection of information that show details on their plans, capabilities and their intentions and they also provide the basis they use to make decisions and the actions taken or to be taken (Contos et al., p.32). They also give timely analyses that provide insight, warning and also opportunity to the head of state and other decision makers who are involved in the protection and the advancement of the interest of America. Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.
The core values of the CIA are connected to their service provision, integrity, and excellence. The country is put first and the agency before itself and quiet patriotism is their hallmark. They are dedicated to the mission and are very proud of their extraordinary response to the customer needs. When it comes to integrity, the CIA upholds the highest standards of conduct and seeks the truth among themselves as colleagues as well as to their customers.
Honor is given to the Agency officers from the past and also their current colleagues. High standards are also held at the CIA organization when it comes to excellence. There is embracement of personal accountability performance is used as a way of reflecting and learning. The thesis statement is, “Security Administration and Management of the CIA.”
B. Roles and responsibilities of the CIA
The roles and responsibilities of the CIA are generally to help the director of central intelligence agency and these roles are;Collecting intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate meansCorrelating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
Providing overall direction for and coordination of the collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources by elements of the Intelligence Community authorized to undertake such collection and, in coordination with other departments, agencies, or elements of the United States Government which are authorized to undertake such collection, ensuring that the most effective use is made of resources and that appropriate account is taken of the risks to the United States and those involved in such collection; and performing such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the Director of National Intelligence may direct (Sennewald, p.53).
In an attempt to accomplish and fully carry out its activities effectively, the CIA carries out research, engages in development and the deployment of high-leverage technology for intelligence purposes. On the other hand, the CIA as a separate agency serves as a source of analysis on issues that are of concern as well as working closely with organizations that deal with intelligence to make sure that the client gets the best intelligence services possible.
C. The Organizational Chart
The Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyThe Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is Leon E. Panetta.The DCIA is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Director manages the operations, personnel and budget of the CIA and acts as the National Human Source Intelligence (HUMINT) Manager.
D. Requirements to Run the CIA Comprehensive Writing Services
Plagiarism-free Always on TimeMarked to Standard
Order Now
The following are the requirements to run the CIA agency:
American citizenry;
A person who is not a citizen of America is not allowed to work in the CIA and the agency does not help people to get US citizenship in order for you to work with them.
Free from Drug use;
Applicants found to have used illegal drugs in the last 12 months prior to the application is not allowed to work with CIA and their application is terminated. ases where applicants are found to have used drugs in the past one year prior to the application, the application is not disqualified its taken into consideration when the application is reviewed.
Security clearance;
In order to work with the CIA, one is required to be free from any conflicting allegiances since the information to be handled at the CIA is highly classified and hence on must demonstrate loyalty and trustworthiness (Miller, p.26). The applicants' information is examined before one is granted security clearance. If there any suspicions by the CIA that the applicant will not get security clearance, one is not hired. Any information you submit will be reviewed with a polygraph test given by the CIA.
Acquaintances background test
The CIA will check the background of the applicant by talking with relatives, friends and contacts. This process takes some time and it is even lengthier in cases where the applicant has many or a large number of foreign contacts. When speaking to the applicants contacts, the CIA does not clearly specify what they are looking for.
Medical and Physical Exams
An applicant must pass a medical and physical exam to ensure that they will be capable of performing the duties of the job for which they are applying. The exam varies depending on the position applied for and this is because there is a variety of job.
Academic Requirements
For many positions, application is enhanced by the ability to speak a foreign language but for other positions like foreign language instructors, the ability to speak foreign language is a requirement.. A number of positions, such as the analytic methodologist, require a bachelor's degree. In cases where the position requires a college degree at least a 3.0 G is required. There are a number of positions that require advance degrees, such as a psychologist which requires a doctorate.
E. Budgetary Allocations: recommendations
The United States government allocates about 3 % of its annual budget to security agencies. A large proportion of this goes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as well as the CIA. This has definitely never been adequate according to (Miller, p.34). The United States government would therefore need to consider the fact that the security of the American citizen has been put at risk with limited budgetary allocations. The maintenance of security is an expensive affair which must be met with the necessary seriousness to avert criminal activities.
An imperative recommendation would be to allocate the budgetary resources according to region so that each and every state receives its fair share of the budgetary allocations.
F. Analysis of the Era of Total Asset Protection
Total asset protection that is under the responsibility of the CIA is quite vast. The CIA being a large organization is charged with responsibility of overseeing asset protection to a certain boundary. Critics suggest that this has always been too large compared to the human resources as well as financial resources allocated to the CIA. There have been plans in the past to try and limit this to match the resources as well as ability of the CIA to meet these obligations so that they are not overwhelmed as is the case with other smaller security firms. This will avert security lapses.
G. CIA's focus on Business Risk Analysis
This is the process of identifying the possible threats that might face the information resources used by a security organization in the achievement of its business objectives. It also entails deciding on the countermeasures required in an attempt of reducing the effects of the possible risks or eve the risks themselves.Risk assessment is done by a group of people who have knowledge of the specific business area. The code of practice for information security managements recommends the following aspects to be examined during risk assessment and analyses; security policy, assessment management, organizational information security, communications and operations management, physical environment security, human resource security, access controls, information security incident management, information systems acquisition, development and maintenance, business continuity management and regulatory compliance (Cazemier and Overbeek, p.44).
This Essay is a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Examples of our work
In broad terms the risk management process consists of:
 Identification of assets and estimating their value. Conduct a threat assessment. Conducting a vulnerability, and for each vulnerability, calculate the probability that it will be exploited. Evaluate policies, procedures, standards, training, technical security. Calculate the impact that each threat would have on each asset. Use qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis. Identify, select and implement appropriate controls. Provide a proportional response. Consider productivity, cost effectiveness, and value of the asset. Evaluate the effectiveness of the control measures. Ensure the controls provide the required cost effective protection without discernible loss of productivity.
H. CIA and Human Resource Support
The human resource department at the CIA builds and shapes the workforce around the intelligence needs of the nation. It does this by attracting, hiring, developing, challenging and rewarding the employees managing their human knowledge, enhancing their human capabilities, supporting and developing the workforce till retirement. The most highly qualified people are hired from different background. The CIA also has established productive partnerships with universities, colleges and other professional networks including organizations that the sources of top talent.
The corporate HR programs of the CIA provide subject matter expertise in performance, compensation, policy, management and also data interpretation to support the HR challenges faced by CIA's senior leadership. The key initiatives of the HR programs are; providing support to the Agency's future transition to a pay for performance system; conducting compensation and retention studies to attract and retain a talented workforce; conducting job and occupational analysis; developing promotion and selection criteria; developing policies in support of the Agency's strategic direction; and conducting analysis in support of workforce planning (Campbell, p.67).
The Leadership Development Program promotes a culture of leadership by developing current and future leaders through formal education, strategic talent reviews, experiential learning opportunities, corporately coordinated assignments, and tailored feedback enriched by leadership development tools.
I. The Global Operations Support for the CIA
The CIA cannot be successful without the global support of various security agencies including the FBI and Interpol. The CIA equally has its representatives in most major countries who oversee the skeletal operations of the organization in those localities. There are other organizations which work in tandem with the CIA to ensure that the security administration is up to the expected standards.
The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI): Captures, promotes, and provides insights of the CIA's history to inform the decisions and meet the expectations of the Intelligence Community.
CIA Universities provides centralized learning opportunities for CIA employees to equip them with the shared values, commitment to mission, knowledge, and excellence in intelligence tradecraft and leadership needed to accomplish extraordinary tasks. The University also offers training and educational opportunities to enable our workforce to develop new knowledge and skills and to gain from lessons learned by others in performing our unique and difficult mission.
II. DiscussionA. How the CIA has dealt with panic du jour
This is a situation that causes panic and a lot of distress. The CIA is usually ready for this situations and deals with them according to the magnitude and the weight of the effects the situation may cause. With the help of the experts working in the CIA, investigations are carried out and immediate measure are taken in an attempt to prevent the occurrence of the situation, in cases where the occurrence of the events can not be stopped, the CIA advices people on how to handle it to minimize its effects on the nation. Where the situations are caused by people, investigations are carried out and the law offenders are taken to court to face the justice system.The CIA has many roles and responsibilities of which at times it carries them out depending on its capacity and capabilities and at times it out sources some resources (Darling, p.11). This is made effective by the many relationships it has with the other intelligence bodies in the country as well as outside the country depending on the issue at hand. The CIA has many proprietary bodies in various parts of the country is these bodies are responsible for carrying out most of the activities and duties of the CIA.
B. Use of Proprietary v. Outsourced Efforts
Proprietary resources or efforts may be time consuming and expensive in the long-run than outsourcing. For this reason, the CIA would rather outsource certain of its security functions such that they are left with the strict administration and oversight of security matters. Moreover, outsourcing is also advantageous as the outsourced function is outsourced to experts who are able to carry on with the mandate and in accordance with the mission and vision of the CIA organization.
C. Threats to the CIA organization
The CIA in its performance of its roles is faced by many challenges and threats. Some of these threats are;
Al Qaeda:
This remains the number one job of the CIA as the Al Qaeda organization has the capacity to most threaten the physical safety of America and Americans.
Violence in Mexico;
Mexico has a horrible surge in violence that may cause and has even has caused the cia to talk with the Mexican authority, in more meaningful and deeper ways, in an attempt to discover ways to cooperate against what is viewed as a common problem.
Iran's nuclear program:
As Iran continues to churn out low enriched uranium, they do it at great cost, diplomatically and economically with regard to sanctions. They seem to be doing it with a purpose and there is the fear that with time and as the stockpile grows, they are going to have to make a decide on what to do with it.
III. Conclusion A. Beneficial management theories Contingency theory
This theory asserts that managers must take into account all the aspects of the situation when making decisions (Saiyadain, p.12). In this situation, leadership is dependent on the current situation and makes decisions from there. This is very important for the CIA because it can not rely on the using the same procedures used to deal with situations that happened a long time to handle the present situations and still remain effective. It should use the advancing technology to upgrade its processes and procedures for it to meet its goals as well as achieve its mission.
Systems theory
This theory looks at the organization as a system that is made up of many parts that work hand in hand in attaining the goals of the organization (Saiyadain, p.12). With this, management can be able to coordinate many activities at the same time and this helps in attaining results faster and in making well infirmed decisions which is crucial for security companies and organization
Chaos theory
Looking at things from this perspective gives a manager the initiative to always be prepared for unforeseen changes. For the CIA to be successful in it mission, it must put in measures to ensure that they are always prepared to deal with unforeseen security issues.
The CIA is therefore mandated with the control and administration of security issues as well as security intelligence in the United States. The thesis statement is, “Security Administration and Management of the CIA.”
IV. Works Cited
Campbell, David. Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Michigan: Manchester University Press, 1992.
Cazemier, Jacques, A., & Overbeek, Paul. L. Security Management. 9th ed. Berlin: The Stationery Office, 1999.
Contos, Brian T. et al. Physical and logical security convergence powered by enterprise security management. Boston: Syngress, 2007.
Darling, Arthur B. The Central Intelligence Agency. Atlanta: Penn State Press, 1990.
Miller, Connie Colwell. The Central Intelligence Agency: Stopping Terrorists. Edinburgh: Capstone Press, 2008.
Saiyadain M. S. (2003). Human Resources Management, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Tata McGraw-Hill.
Sennewald, C. A. Effective security management. 4th ed. London: Elsevier, 2003.
Wagner, Heather Lehr. The Central Intelligence Agency. Washington: Chelsea House, 2007.

References:

Once you memorize these CIA-IV Q&A, you will get 100% marks.

Forget everything! Just forcus on these CIA-IV Q and A.

CIA-IV real test | CIA-IV online exam | CIA-IV pass marks | CIA-IV writing test questions | CIA-IV Practice test - bigdiscountsales.com

CIA-IV - The Certified Internal Auditor Part 4 - Dump Information

where must I sign in for CIA-IV exam?

these CIA-IV actual Questions works within the actual take a look at.

No greater worries while making ready for the CIA-IV examination.

That was Awesome! I got Latest Braindumps of CIA-IV exam.

proper source to get CIA-IV modern brain sell off paper.

simply attempt real CIA-IV check questions and achievement is yours.

Dont waste your time on searching internet, just cross for those CIA-IV Questions and solutions.

Party is over! Time to study and pass the exam.

were given no trouble! 3 days instruction of CIA-IV braindumps is needed.

Very easy to get certified in CIA-IV exam with these Q&A.

See more Financial dumps

Latest Exams added on bigdiscountsales

See more dumps on bigdiscountsales

CIA-IV Questions and Answers

QUESTION: 180

Answer: B

QUESTION: 181

Answer: A

QUESTION: 182

Answer: C

QUESTION: 183

Answer: A

QUESTION: 184

Answer: D

QUESTION: 185

Answer: C

QUESTION: 186

Answer: B

QUESTION: 187

Answer: B

QUESTION: 188

Answer: B

QUESTION: 189

Answer: C

QUESTION: 190

Answer: A

Financial CIA-IV Exam (The Certified Internal Auditor Part 4) Detailed Information

Enlisting its guardian drones in southcoms drug

Corporate Integrity Agreement with Pfizer

War, Globalization, and Reproduction

Lawlor v. Warden

Security Administration and Management at the CIA organization

References:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pass4sure SY0-501 Practice Tests with Real Questions

Just memorize these CTFA questions before you go for test.

CompTIA SY0-501 Dumps and Practice Tests with Real Questions