5.8 Customer Audits and Information Requests. You agree to exercise your right to conduct an audit or inspection by engaging Sena to perform the audit described in Section 5.7. You agree that you may be required to agree to a non-disclosure agreement with Sena before we share such report or audit results with you, and that we may redact such reports as we deem appropriate. If Sena does not comply with such instruction, or if it is required by law that you demonstrate compliance with European data protection law by means other than reviewing a report of that audit, you may only request a change as follows: 5.6 Subcontractors. You agree that we may share your Controlled Data with sub-processors in order to provide the Services to you. We will impose contractual obligations on our sub-processors and contractually obligate our sub-processors to impose contractual obligations on any other sub-processors they engage to process your Controlled Data that provide the same level of data protection for your Controlled Data in all material respects as the contractual obligations imposed in this Data Processing Addendum; to the extent that this applies to the nature of the services provided by such subcontractors. A list of our current subcontractors is available upon request by sending an e-mail to privacy@sena.com. If your objection is reasonable and relates to privacy concerns, you may object to any sub-processor by sending an email to privacy@sena.com. If you object to a sub-processor and your objection is reasonable and relates to privacy concerns, we will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide you with a means of avoiding processing of your data controlled by the challenged sub-processor. If we are unable to provide such a proposed change within a reasonable period of time, we will notify you, and if you still object to our use of such subprocessor, you may terminate or terminate your account or, if possible, those parts of the Services that involve the use of such subprocessor.
Except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.6, if you object to sub-processors, you may not use or access the Services. You consent to the use of sub-processors as described in this Section 5.6. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.6 or as otherwise permitted by you, we will not allow any sub-processors to access your Controlled Data. Sena remains responsible for compliance with its obligations under this Data Processing Addendum and for any act or omission of any subprocessor or its other subcontractors who process your Controlled Data and cause Sena to breach any of Sena`s obligations under this Data Processing Addendum, only to the extent Sena would be liable under the Agreement if the act or omission were Sena`s own. On the merits, Sena argues, first, that the retroactive application of the broader definition of a serious crime to qualify it for deportation on the basis of his prior admission of guilt constitutes an unconstitutional breach of due process guarantees. It seeks only rational scrutiny, and we cannot say that Congress had no “de facto legitimate and good faith reason,” Campos, 961 F.2d to 316 (cited Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 794, 97 pp. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977)) to retroactively apply the expanded definition of serious crime to include cases like Sena`s.
b. Within a reasonable time after receiving and reviewing the application, you and we will discuss a plan in good faith and work to agree on a plan to determine the details of how the application can be processed. You and we agree to use the least intrusive means for Sena to verify Sena`s compliance with security measures to process the request, taking into account applicable legal requirements, information available to you or provided to you, the urgency of the matter, and Sena`s need to maintain uninterrupted business operations and the security of its facilities. and protect itself and its customers from risk and prevent disclosure. information that could compromise Sena`s privacy or our users` information. 4. The new section reads as follows: (D) Judicial Review of Certain Legal Rights Nothing in subparagraph B or C or any other provision of this Chapter (other than this Division) that limits or eliminates judicial review shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised in response to an application for review by a court of appeal having jurisdiction under this section. (emphasis added) 4. In March 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued an order setting out the grounds for Sena to have been deported under section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) as an alien convicted of a “serious crime”. 2 At the time of Sena`s agreement, his offence may not have been classified as a serious crime, but Sena acknowledges that subsequent amendments to the definition of “serious crime” in the Immigration Act clarified that the offence for which Sena was convicted is currently a serious offence within the meaning of section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the INA.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(n). 3. This subsection was repealed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-208, Div. C, Title III, § 304(b), 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-597. {3} In his trial against the accused, the State attempted to provide evidence that he was walking around naked in front of Child; that he had shown her a pornographic video; that he showed her the underwear of his thong; and that he showered naked with her (hereinafter collectively referred to as “The Grooming Evidence”). Prior to trial, the defendant filed an in limine motion to exclude grooming evidence.
At a hearing on the petition, the state argued that the grooming evidence showed the defendant`s attempt to gain the child`s trust and familiarize her with matters of a sexual nature so that she would become familiar with her sexual behavior. The State also asserted that the evidence was admissible because it showed the defendant`s intent. The respondent argued that the evidence should not be admitted because he did not claim no sexual intent, but rather denied that unlawful touching ever took place. The trial court admitted preparation evidence under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA (provided that evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts, although inadmissible to prove conduct, may be admissible to prove motive, expediency, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of error or accident). Congress has a legitimate interest in protecting society from the commission of serious crimes and the illicit trafficking, possession and use of dangerous weapons, and legislation that deports aliens who are currently committing such acts or have committed them in the past is a rational means of promoting that interest. Congress also has a narrower and equally legitimate interest in expeditiously removing dangerous aliens from the country, and the uniform application of the new law to deport all aliens convicted of certain crimes also rationally furthers this goal. We may revise these Terms at any time in our sole discretion and without notice. We will notify you of any changes to these Terms by posting a notice on our home page at www.sena.com (the “Site”) or otherwise, and the revision will be effective immediately upon such posting on the Site, unless otherwise stated.