Hector and his family came to the United States from Cuba last year. Hector speaks only Spanish and seems unable to learn English despite extended help from an ELL teacher. He is failing all subjects in second grade except for Art and P. E. He was recently evaluated for the possibility of intellectual disability. The school psychologist administered an intelligence test in Spanish. Scores indicate that Hector has significant cognitive delays. Based on the findings, the IEP team is recommending that Hector receive special education services as a student with an intellectual disability. Did Hector receive a nondiscriminatory evaluation as required by IDEA?

Consultant: you're welcome. as a first step, our team analyzed the other potential primary contenders. the reality is that with such a strong field, it is going to be difficult to gain the of votes necessary to avoid a runoff—unless you want to go negative from the start. and our opposition research team found plenty of ammunition to do just that.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

Which of the following is a result of the low of food production