During a sentencing hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Jerome Simandle also ordered Levy to repay the $25,000 in extra benefits he received as a result of the lies.

Known as the "missing mayor" because he dropped out of sight for two weeks last fall, Levy later admitted to lying about what he did in the war in order to obtain the extra veteran's benefits.

He stepped down as mayor last October, after admitting his two-week absence was to attend a clinic for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues.

During Friday's hearing, Simandle said Levy unquestionably suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

"This case is ultimately a sad case of human failure that was provoked and promoted by being asked as a 17-year-old to do some very difficult and dangerous duty on behalf of their country," Simandle said.

The judge said Levy continues to exaggerate his military service, specifically by saying he did work for a special operations unit called "the pathfinders," which set up drop zones during the war and made other combat preparations behind enemy lines.

Levy insisted he had done several missions with the unit even though he was not a member of it.

"I wasn't no hero, running around like Rambo," Levy said. "I was scared to death. I was running around with a radio on my back, doing the best I can."

But Simandle noted that officials with the Veteran's Administration interviewed commanders and members of the special unit Levy claimed to have served with, and none remembered him.

Ultimately, the judge said Levy continues having trouble determining what is real and what is not.

"What he went through was a crisis," the judge said. "He didn't come out of it well."

Christopher Scott Emmett, 36, was pronounced dead at 9:07 p.m. He was convicted of beating a co-worker to death with a brass lamp in 2001 so he could steal the man's money to buy crack cocaine.

Emmett's appeal was the first to require a federal appeals court to interpret a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that upheld Kentucky's three-drug method of lethal injection and apply it to another state's procedures.

Gov. Tim Kaine declined to intervene with the sentence being carried out.

"Tell my family and friends I love them, tell the governor he just lost my vote," Emmett said in the chamber before he died. "Y'all hurry this along, I'm dying to get out of here."

The lethal injection appeared to go as planned. Emmett was pronounced dead about five minutes after he was first sedated.

His attorneys claimed that Virginia's use of lethal injection amounted to cruel and unusual punishment because of the possibility that paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs could be administered before inmates are rendered unconscious by another drug.

Unlike Kentucky, Virginia does not allow for a second dose of sodium thiopental, which results in a deep, coma-like unconsciousness, even when a second round of the other drugs is required. Virginia also administers the three drugs more quickly than Kentucky.

In 10 of the 70 lethal injections performed in Virginia before this year, a second dose of the last two drugs was given because the inmate did not die within a few minutes after the heart-stopping drug was administered, according to court papers.

Earlier this month, a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that Virginia's protocol was similar enough to Kentucky's that it would not cause inmates excruciating pain. Emmett's attorneys had asked the full court to review the case, but justices voted 6-4 against the full hearing.

Judge Roger Gregory, writing in favor of the full court hearing Emmett's appeal, said that the Supreme Court found the sodium thiopental "essential to the humanity of Kentucky's procedure," and that Virginia did not offer safeguards comparable to those used in Kentucky to ensure that inmates didn't experience excruciating pain.

Emmett was the 102nd inmate executed in Virginia since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. Only Texas has executed more prisoners.

Officer Chadd Stensgaard, who parked his patrol car illegally while making a dinner-break stop at a Japanese restaurant, must pay a $35 fine, Traffic Court Judge Terry Hannon ruled Wednesday.

The infraction came to light thanks to Eric Bryant, who was at the restaurant with friends when Stensgaard parked in a curbside no-parking zone. Bryant, an attorney, filed a citizen complaint against the officer in March.

About five minutes after the officer arrived, Bryant walked up to him and told him he was parked illegally. "He told me he was allowed to do so," Bryant testified. "I responded, 'No, you're not.' I told him he was an officer of the law. He's not supposed to break the law. He's supposed to enforce the law."

Oregon law allows emergency responders to park in no-parking zones when responding to emergencies or chasing suspects. The law says nothing about sushi.

Stensgaard testified that he needed to park his car close by in case he had to respond to an emergency call. He declined to comment after his defeat.

Portland police leaders say they plan to ask city commissioners to make it legal for officers to park in no-parking zones when ordering food or stopping for a restroom break.

Bryant, meanwhile, saw the ruling as a victory for those who don't carry a badge.

"I tried to represent the best interests of Oregonians," Bryant said. "And I believe that Oregonians believe police don't get to ignore the law."

Andrew Giuliani, a 22-year-old rising senior, contends he had dreams of becoming a professional golfer and was dismissed without cause from the golf team in February without a chance to defend himself. He said in a statement Thursday that he sued "to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else at Duke."

Giuliani was dismissed because coach O.D. Vincent III wanted to cut the team from 13 players to about half its size, the lawsuit said. He claims a breach of contract because he was recruited by Duke's previous coaching staff.

"This has been heartbreaking," Giuliani's mother, Donna Hanover, said in a statement. "We tried for many months to convince members of the Duke administration that this situation should be corrected and we are sad that we have now had to turn to the court."

The coach said Giuliani "flipped his putter a few feet to his golf bag" and drove fast while leaving a golf course parking lot, according to the lawsuit. Giuliani also was accused of playing a team football game harder than the other players liked and of being disrespectful to a trainer.

The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is the latest twist in a decade-long legal battle over the Child Online Protection Act. The fight has already reached the Supreme Court and could be headed back there.

The law, which has not taken effect, would bar Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet. The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional in the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU challenged the 1998 law on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists, health educators and the publisher Salon Media Group.

ACLU attorney Chris Hansen argued that Congress has been trying to restrict speech on the Internet far more than it can restrict speech in books and magazines. But, he said, "the rules should be the same."

Indeed, the Child Online Protection Act would effectively force all Web sites to provide only family-friendly content because it is not feasible to lock children out of sites that are lawful for adults, said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law.

One of her first stops after being released from prison was the Jefferson County Voter Registrar's Office. But she was told she was a convicted felon and couldn't vote.

"I couldn't believe it," Pruitt said. "They continued to give me numbers to call. It was very much demeaning."

Now she has gone to court to try to get her right to vote restored.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in Montgomery Circuit Court on behalf of Pruitt and two other ex-felons seeking restoration of their voting rights. The lawsuit claims Alabama law is unclear on the subject, citing a bill passed by the Legislature in 2003 that says felons can vote unless convicted on "crimes of moral turpitude," but never defines those crimes.

The Legislature adopted a list of 15 crimes, including murder, treason and some sex crimes, that would exempt a person from having their voting rights restored. But the lawsuit says it's up to the state's voter registrars and the attorney general to decide in other cases if a person's rights can be restored.

"The Marriage Protection Act" otherwise known as Proposition 8 goes to the California voters in November 2008. But what exactly is this proposition? It would amend the California Constitution to include the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional thus allowing gay and lesbians to marry as early as June 17, 2008. Many did and many more are to follow, reveling in the fact that the gay and lesbian individuals are now equals in the state for marriage. But that was short lived for as soon as that ruling was past those who oppose, filed for a measure to be placed on the ballot to amend the constitution.

It is believed that those who wish to have the constitution amended convoluted the truth when they obtain the requested signatures to have the proposition placed on the November ballot, thus ensuring that it would stay. The California Supreme Court denied a motion to have the proposition stricken from the ballot as they would not hear same, thus California gets to vote on same.

Churches of various denominations as well as non-denomination support the change to the California constitution stating that they are doing same to "protect one of our nation's most sacred institutions." This is the second attempt to change the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage and supporters are confident that it will pass based on a random polling. For all the rhetoric that is being said, individuals hide behind their religious texts to support their cause who no real basis for having the constitution amended. Those who oppose spend massive amounts of money in trying to force their will on others. This is not right; there are far more important issues to address such as the war in Iraq, the economy and those who really do need help.