whole thing should be mushed together i'm suggesting that the court would look specifically at two dash six b which is the definition of dwelling in the context that we're dealing with the resident or the residential burglary statute as opposed to the general workers


brief it became apparent that they now have asserted many statements about what their second amendment of a second amended complaint alleges that are not factually accurate it in their power and we've cited


vs american board of psychiatry that on a motion dispossessed dismiss the plate that receives the benefit of imagination so long as those hypothesis are consistent with the complaint here i think we go a little bit beyond the imagination in that


argument is way because it was not made at the district court and should not be considered it's important to know that ultimately once mr all for major complains that she was given a heavy workload she was also me relieved to some of these duties


me like you're asking us to give the wisconsin supreme order a new advisory opinion about how they have to interpret state law no we're not at all asking them we don't think that this court should pass upon the state law claim at all what is before


i gather from her remarks that your colleague thinks the state law is clear there's a disagreement between the school district and the district judge on that one is the view of the state of wisconsin


through there is a decision that should try was granted it's called stalking us out of florida and the reason i certainly did not submit a supplemental authority because it it has been decided number one so it's not technically a forty but for whatever it's worth it's a part of the


custody miss nixon's ex husband was operating pursuant to a no contact order from the state court in illinois which stated that he by the definition of the statute did not have print rights he had no physical custody over the child and if he didn't have that simple custody over the child


child when one's child's pediatrician and counselor tells you that your child is being abused you tend to believe that and that would have been very informative and very probative for the jury to have heard of determining whether or not ms nixon had a reasonable belief that abuse was being


your honor and i would like to court know that during the did the sentencing hearing there was evidence that came out the dr de haan that early on in the stage had a nurse practitioner but throughout the proceeding


races revolver in his right hand and pointed it at the three officers standing on the right path where where was the bullet what what's this ballistic shield we're talking about here is that some unknown and big metal thing what is it the record


what the court found is that there was an open question as to whether the case was removable and you should have removed it by not removing it you forfeited your right to remove that's what


wants the disclosure is made about inability to pay debts i don't think anybody would be confused by balance sheet insolvency versus i don't think i've ever heard you say somebody might not be confused by anything


the point i would make is that by has pelleas an independently owned and operated hotel management company it provides services for hotel coleman and other hotels as well as a small business it simply can't succeed in the market if it's not qualify


and the injuries involved and singapore where the appellant as its principal place of business that's where they're the transaction originated that led to the breach that led to the injury that led to the arbitration award and eventually swam downstream to the united states


to point out to the court that the chip to check the fifteen petition was dismissed because all modern ayesha poor and am called exhibit bad faith in not complying with the court's orders so the same


to stephen lincoln and i'm trying to understand what exactly that document is it's see below it looks like his return date will be next monday and the e mail is dated december


whatever reason and that work that didn't work out in his favor and also in you i think at this point it's conceded that he's one of the robbers of this pharmacy so he gets called in august decides not to come


those issues did not go to the enforceability of the franchise agreement even if miss cadwallader was not sell us in a representation even if she was conflicted and there was no evidence of either it made no difference is the terminations was that it was a


issue is whether heather deafen back after shopping at a barnes and noble store in california that was equipped with a pin pad that was compromised by criminals


taking their chances every time they showed up that somebody out of the goodness of his heart was going to help them like i don't there was no sheriff's policy i don't know so the sheriff did have a policy on that was to provide help if i could act whatever excess was needed what the sheriff


but she doesn't final a different kind of chapter bankruptcy she doesn't try to completely discharge the start she's a tempting to manage us and we don't have any of unknowns that at all in the record anywhere that any of these other


them basically you know our line is unless they aren't just screamingly obviously will what makes these findings by the district judge screamingly wrong with respect to that particular sure two things


examination after which dr rana also made really a medical opinion finding which is no difficulty sitting standing walking with those kinds of exertional limitations and functionalities dr rand i found no


regulations to apply to reference listed and or drugs and non reference listed and of drugs alike and that interpretation should be entitled to deference now let me address the argument that ms beer scene made today because i think it is a somewhat different argument


well there are really two critical points the first is that the supreme court has made clear in this beer scene agrees today that the preemption analysis terms on the ability to invoke the c b e process to make unilateral change yes


regulations and i want to say just a word about this issue of reference list of drugs because i think at least in her brief ms spears steen places a lot of weight on the notion that reference list a drug should be treated differently i think it's very very


don't have to jump through all those hoops and yet you know the outcome of this case is not going to have any effect on those consumers unless one wants to engage in sort of an attenuated you know well if the outcome of the case is to induce merchants


wait a certain period of time you need to wait at least your five or six months and actually have to do something but just looking at the statute you have to wait that period of time i'm sure the so security administration saves


that mr byrd became disabled for a second time in november of two thousand and twelve her five month waiting period was over after april which means her first month of entitlement to benefits was may of


we have a contract that's terminable for any reason whatsoever where the underlying expression from mr mcauliffe who is conscious is owner is basically about an internal feud that she's having with her


the supreme court's opinion in johnson against jones we can't review actual disputes we can't review records that are factually too uncertain to reach a decision you have to wait for the final judgment


forty three sixty nine says that absent title does not transfer until the the confirmation of the trial court now i understand judge kane and pointed analysis of whether or not the court had the


because because i guess one concern i have is that it wasn't even clear until we decided chambers a district courts were supposed to look at three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors on one of these motions and it certainly wasn't clear as we held in chambers that you must look at


understand what the district court was thinking in reducing it by that and now we see these you know the lord since i'm seeing range in the medication


corruption rather than just the severe economic problems the board also failed to consider evidence in the motion to reopen and the board does have jurisdiction to review questions of law on


just do whatever he likes and ignore his probation officer that another similar situated defendant would not have an incentive to comply a supervised release because of it bank of time and that's simply because the bank of time only applies as a practical matter after a sentence


core the government sought a cell order right that delayed it under forty to forty one but if we vacate the cell order then it seems like to me you would show up the very next day to v o p and say


medications of some sort so you are i don't think that's entirely factually accurate the the reduction in dose was for about a week i think it was eight days and the the government doctor grabbing knowledge that the cell


to hold for you that that she didn't have any difficulty but i think simply having a hearing impairment standing alone is not going to disqualify someone from service that's why the devil is always in the details you've got to


there's a fundamental question here that we've oh i mean we can keep saying she couldn't hear it isn't here to move to podium things like that but that's not really the issue that we deal with in a hay vs capital appeal it's a very very


given that you know if you want to challenge that it would seems like to me you might would have brought in a doctor or so one to present some testimony to be yun concluded her statement that well it


been it's a pretty powerful thing to bring in you know a doctor who knows about hearing this is a person with this we know i know this from a she would not be able to hear from that this is a unit that i'm a suit would it would compel a result but it would


mean are we to sort is there no way to thread this needle because we do have cases where we say that and yes there are cases that say that but those cases also say and even the policy statements in the beginning of chapter seven


martial out right addressing issues such as whether or not a service member is actually a met an active member at the time it also if that happens whether whether the military tribunal had a personal jurisdiction over over the defendant at the time


and try to bring the summons claim and i'm sure hoping that it would be declared retroactive during the year and a half that the district court was determining the petition and i do appreciate i think that


of substantive rights that was a trial like atmosphere or in the criminal realm and in re washington post this court held that criminal police hearings sentencing hearings are criminal trials are protected by the st amendment most recently


ability of the press to monitor the progress of the litigation this becomes very important in the context of a summary judgment motion because if if the if the public is not able to see the sweeping redactions or even identify


say reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and let me tell you why it is a bad idea for this corps to go with the same day of practicable standard because aside from the momentous issues of federalism and the fact that this is


i tried to enter size is a courthouse news was not seeking media access or access at the moment to find out now to get her sorry or i thought you said you wanted the same day or


was said a bright line rule on this this is applied to rule county like it does to metropolitan counties does that mean that you got different places all over and when i start to plead a rule that is bright line is that


understand because i thought you said in your brief and i noted it because i thought it was pretty compelling that this record was underdeveloped that it didn't make sense to do this on a perimeter area injunction and on an underdeveloped record but but now you are saying


because the plaintiffs are able to show it stems from an impermissible purpose and so it wouldn't be inconsistent legally to say that the exact same voter id law would be permissible in one jurisdiction where there is no evidence of an impermissible discriminatory


what there's no evidence of that the stepfather was right there were no other other than a small child the only individuals present for the arrest were the stepfather the small child and mr paler the mother was simply not


suggest in the court should have come up with an alternative on its own and then it and then yes assessed or had the parties assess that i mean it doesn't there have to have


and in fact that in a decision written by judge poe's he basically said that with the with the planes as we're asking for and then they are also asking for you know you should have looked at different alternatives or a hybrid alternative would judge posner said is that


court can make a decision about ritual activity and so it does not have to already have been done it just has to have been deemed to be done at the time the court considers it so are our art


most significant water quality impacts during the period of construction as streams are damned pumps and trenches are dug through stream beds and wetlands allowing those that construction to commence without


not whether or not you put conditions on it and they call it regiment a kid is is really a question of izzie suffering from a mental illness that would require this to happen is that more or less were in my view met in a


in terms of trying to understand if it yeah i guess from my perspective you do it with a commonsense application that could give you a different result but i state we might be constrained by the law i mean we're talking about someone who's been diagnosed as a p to feel which is up


actually consent is withdrawn in the middle of the year they will parent we adjust the placement plans so we on that basis is demonstrating quite plainly that the rule of the consent is playing and this process now i


of apparently one hundred and thirty eight thousand two hundred and forty one thousand decisions have been posted there is an effort to comply going


mental illness it may not occur but at least you constantly have that as an open issue it's a little bit like civil contempt you have the keys to the door now of course a mentally incompetent person doesn't have the keys because he's


that you're on your own or i guide i'm not at one argue with your position that just right there's no welsh there's no welsh government decision giving anyone any rights in anything goes but the whites under united states


such a thing just was a really much more complex case and so how do we find a reasonable probability of a different result when there was really overwhelming evidence regard his participation in this


transcript came back to the statements in closing arguments it began with them it's either them as a crime area evidence of guilt especially on count one which is the overarching charge and the only charge that enabled mr presley to get a life sentence in this case it told the


have produced these records in a timely way but that really resolve issues of their intent she says well the buying of documents from the l t c offices was overwhelming at the office was in disarray and disorganized and there was no inventory of documents


you judge harris pointed out earlier is the issue of whether this entire f b i file was given over to the prosecutor in this case because it is undisputed in the evidence


should take three months


point weta had gotten better that at that point was competent and that is criminal proceedings should continue and that's exactly what the government told judge russell at that point was completed counsel that


th directive and the problem with the directive is that it's really the type of executive action that can be changed at any time so you know they entered it essentially overnight there's nothing preventing the defendants from entering a


standing because they have th demonstrated that on the allegations that their ability to provide services that are essential to their functions so the advocacy advocacy services that they provide such as voter registration and educational assistance


telling me that that's just an estimate there's nothing no guarantee of anything it would seem to me that that would put somebody on inquiry notice that there's a disconnect there or maybe out a pipe up and say something your honor he


st amendment he has to be able to communicate with everyone i am i i'm not saying he has to be able to communicate with everyone but he should be able to communicate with the individuals in the


variances at sense is not the case in proceeding but it doesn't speak to the notion of old barry and says that the district court already found to the individualized determination that a just report already made and in fact when dillon


elements clause them through in the word attempt based on language that didn't exist that just doesn't make any sense now their nd example is the obstruction statute has some provisions in it that they say would be


immunity have to be unequivocal yes right here you use that term as well yes your honor but only as to whether there is a waiver in the st place not as to the scope of the way and that's a pretty key distinction because in this case we're only


when we look at the record before this court a disclosure of experts by mr margin happened two days after the deadline re days after that which would be five innings after the deadline it was a


prosecutor and that is the record that establishes what i'm saying but my burden as i understood it was to not not present evidence i asked the court to allow me to do that and the court said no no need to do that don't worry about jumping


does it it says class of workers engaged in interstate commerce and if you look at circuit city circuit city said repeatedly that you look at whether the workers are engaged in the flow of interstate commerce and remember the plaintiffs in circuit


amazon says in its brief that they used to use u p s united states they also used to use the united states postal service they used to use fed ex all of these workers who would arrive at their station fedex or


would you respond to my concern that the reason that the defendants maybe they were totally incapable of rain course of japhet it but the reason that they didn't have any incentive to do that in this case is the district judge was relying on lorenzo that's


question suggests it may have may or may not be pertinent to our resolving the appeal but if it is don't we have to have somebody making factual findings given that there is so many of these cases out there i mean i we read i read i'm sure we all read


authority to disregard that i mean that was the plain language of a binding precedent and he recognized the i'll go on track with you there so the government the government raised the issue they preserved it now we're up on appeal so what do we do so your honor


there i see that i'm out of time you get to see that your time so if you could just sum up counsel during your honor the last point i would take is that this case wasn't a slam dunk it was an overwhelming evidence and i think we see that from the fact that the


whether the law was clearly established at the time the officer acted and of course the law was clearly established defendant's decision to detain mr a naga based upon an


definitions contained within the statute for one to be a bomb material supplier they have to directly or indirectly supply a component part or raw material for use in the manufacture of an implant and there's no way i could be doing that here that's what i don't understand if


we don't know if if you did anything we don't know what happened but we're just going to assume that all of these things happened because in some other instance what he thought of her child pornography he be accepted it he took


courts of course can rid of this henri man that's not an extreme claim that's exactly the claim that they're raising here as maybe morrow is talking about some sort of extreme line if that's the case and morrow is mischaracterizing color but color is not talking about some extreme


have a good basis and again of course the company doesn't do it is outrageous and you know i understand that in any event i think i do think that in this case it was appropriate to


a claim you're asking the jury to decide in the with regard to the f l a claim what actually happened and then you're turning around and you're asking the jury to decide on the other hand what the company honestly believes and that's really tough to get right


that is the the evidence of the court heard was not just the intention of the plaintiff you have a chance as was brought out is that he was accumulating seniority in seniority is like tenure


argument that i want to ask you about before we got to deep into this you make a procedural argument that says the decision document kid to incorporate by reference well some other document i want to get to explain that argument to


a style or you know a overall concept he was independently contributing as piper o'neil one of the assistants testified unique contribution unique work that was being undertaken so you have this this control issue that was


on religious and historical facts to make sure that the production was accurate in those regards what the court said was a contribution is not necessarily a joint authorship and here julie had the


defendant clearly understood the conduct that was that issue in the case it's not as though this is a case where his inability to recall from memory the attempted murder charge meant that he was completely overlooking some portion


people who had disabilities so it was not means tested it was dependent on her level of disability and the grant goes straight to the school to go to i mean how was it paid you


argument that argument as a part of an effort to seek attorneys yes so are you asking us to rule on that now about us provoking one file would follow or could you just explain how you understand the procedural


why can't he still sue for a mouse in many aspects to bad therapy he was supposed to get there or even the v a that's what she was authorized to do and she did it quite


question and that is going to be dependent upon a service that state law gave the plaintiff a right to to obtain and i just don't see any way around the use that in oregon at least she had the right to have her husband


statute not only on the word probable cause but under the factors in the subsection c i think it is in the statute that permits the discretion and therefore is not a mandatory matter and it falls within the castle


that's for a few months those for me those four allegations from the june twenty eight thousand dollars hearing were still out there and in january the probation officer filed a new petition for revocation of supervised release because defendant


piece of the trial and to make the point strategically that you know the government's coming forward with this alleged nexus the evidence it just shows they have a weak case and seem like the defense more trying to harness this as opposed to objecting to it coming in well


part of the kids they want to say it was important but then why did they call an expert to give this testimony if it was important they brought in a law enforcement expert which sure is going to defer to you because they needed something to push them over the top in this case it was a close case as a district judge said


overall record and that is what the a l j did here i did want to also address i see that i have about a minute just with respect to the lay witnesses that cornelius


well there's some evidence here but it is you know it's extremely minor and what what what evidence is it that shows


an entity on defendant market in different jackson and they make no arguments with respect to the other cities or to the other claims that they purport to challenge in their brief in particular the i would say


any after who violated his restriction including but not limited to mr holman and in fact the soldier who shot the shot in violation of those restrictions it's important to remember that your training could only go


attendants and communicational workers salute the court is very interested in hearing both the perspectives of the state agency and the perspectives of


that means that the prior conviction is not as attenuated as it is in the cases cited by respondent and i think that's the critical distinction between such go and and lackawanna and those other cases that respondent cites


not talking about weeks within hours they arrange for him to be seen by a medical professional and that medical professional is him the st prescription that in fact you ever have for he'll age is he did have a prescription he says it


well as a practical matter as i understand it if you were to prevail on this and he you know or any part of that apart from settlement the remedy would be to go back to trial is that right yes your


through the time of the summary judgment was entered there was not any motion made by mister spencer to supplement the record or to renew the fifty six f motion or submit


diminish after one year and under those circumstances even even looking at the numbers that house spell provided interior interior found that it would still


last full year for which they had numbers which was two thousand and eleven and they said given that and given how did


that you can satisfy this proclamation with a range of insurance products and again you know if i go back to the current situation and subsidy or subsidize a ca care is available now but the problem still persists


of the record and whether it shows shows that harm has done that here and the injunction does preserve the status quo and prevents a major and present unprecedented change in


under the section ten standard i understand it's very narrow but the cases that we cited in the late night circuit all have something in common which is that cases where an arbitrator award sanctions illegal conduct or conduct that violates a statute those


have viewed the letter as a statement indicating a preference for religion or preference for the non religious neighbors what the letter itself refers


neighboring mile does that apply to christmas lights other boarders waive that requirement you could see them so in technicality it could be your we've got not just christmas lights now the extent of the christmas


yourself this is judge when asked to your claim again tell me it's really based on a failure to act i certainly individuals within different supervisory positions is there any indication in the record that any of those


i think it should not be given any weight in the in the process now mr quincey they did have some protected activities and there were some adverse actions all of them however his performance


and if he saw more than five hours of overtime he would send an e mail not to the line manager who then would actually cite some discretion now he would send it to the division manager and he's going to with three of those at the entire company i want we there's three and then there's two he will send an email to


mentioned about what judge isabella had before and what he didn't have before him judge vasquez at the district court level he was very troubled by that and for it was said here i believe a few moments ago that he wasn't quite clear


that they needed to independently confirm or investigate tax records that's not a possibility that we did acknowledges that and says expressly as a result that customs officers should be allowed to rely on existing tax records but the second point


became apparent there may be a problem with them testifying they also didn't grant immunity when they were called to the stand is there a big difference between is there anything in the record that suggests that they would have accepted the immunity offer i don't have anything in the


counsel cross examine him on this with the fact that he was charged and convicted perhaps in it given a criminal penalty for his own conduct yeah but i don't see how that's a cross examination i don't see how that impeachment


really the last opportunity of a non citizen who has an order reinstated against them to remain in the united states when they have a few of returning to their country of origin so i would contend that


saved and if that was that found as a matter of fact anywhere it was found as a matter of fact by a judge few del and it was found as a matter of fact by judge lanahan on the hate b s and i believe by the third circuit on a farm and some


disregarded is for the court to enable it to determine whether the money going to the class is fair and whether or not the money going to the attorneys for the work on that case adequately adequately compensates


or say on its own is ever we we didn't cite a case that said that in the brief because it's not material to our argument here what we did in our briefing is we took the facts as they were we


and thirty four she was in custody so but you have to say more than just this is irrelevant as a state law matter you have to say this violates due process because your conviction was


i think the new jersey court would be in the best position to address but should the court not certify again i do think that looking at the statute and the statutes referenced to the offense having to be committed to


apply to dangerous if i see my time has expired so i think that's an indication that the regulation is applying to dangerous offenses and i think that this certainly is a dangerous offense it is in


acted to protect the vulnerable victims of society so mr dean by his commission of the offense is not necessarily posing a violent risk toward anyone but he is putting in danger society's most vulnerable victims


this crosses the goal line or sorry or service or to be a pattern or practice that something has to be done


good company overall it was really directed through the baby powder product but the big car was absolutely advertised for decades let me say let me turn to a portion of this case that has not been touched


he cannot be held responsible for any acts before he actually joined the conspiracy and that there's some sort of factual finding somewhere that he join a conspiracy as of june third and i would think that a number of grounds first


questioners suffered as far as anxiety and fear are so similar harms to all criminal defendants however that's the specific reason that we have the speedy trial right and he saw it and in fact barker characterize


takes a lot the board and we also look at the supreme court's opinion and said at the very end of justice which it says we have no difficulty imagining for example a statute that applies the acts demands to anyone


so she certainly considered it will be extrinsic circumstances and she certainly considered wealthy evidence on as far as reformation is concerned there were certainly no unconscionable billeted here because the


you're convicted as a felon can bet same here once you you know even though you were busy at some point too bad lifelong ban was that that an intention of denial of rights similar to convicted felons this


point forward that costs are expended the person who made that really should be what noble well i understand that's your think it's a saucily defensible policy assertion but it but i'm trying to get you to


paying that it so i think section two point one two of the settlement agreement has to be read in con in the context of that settlement agreement or they're talking about in two point one two making the month making the payments on


he also but there's also some other repairs that need to be made and so he's and he's allowed to use it for that but when that money runs out during the two years he's got to take over making the payments and if the property doesn't sell within those two years then you go to the release agreement or you're


interpreted its that rule brian is preelection bryant case was brought pre election pre certified cation our cases post election post serve occasion but that language is talking about a shift of power it's talking about as a concept looking at


and in addition to that when you and if i may just step back and look and point the judges to just the circumstances of this particular case and the timing of this are all very action


felon right right but here we are we can't be we i mean he was a felon right right twenty's are but we're we're not sure that he knew he was a felon and the jury


is the evidence of record can lead to only one reasonable conclusion no reasonable person could look at this record say you know we think you may be at risk but that doesn't mean it's


him but the government accepted all that but he said everything came from him this is mr guy was this point i take it which is how can the only way to read the conclusion


because we are dealing with the overall subject matter of what is required of a state statute to determine whether it meets the immigration


less than the conduct that fits into the immigration the definition of child endangerment without that limiting concept of community of the common sense of the community yes


was decided by the the state court exactly your honor just to return to my point about mr alston the letter


is it ok for the superior court to misquote the u s supreme court by quoting depends if a supreme court on what standard is for determining a reasonable application of clearly established federal law i'm


which is enacted by the legislatures that represented the people saying pictures taken by somebody over eighteen of those who are under eighteen are prohibited plus we have the ninth circuit saying chopra


knitted or not those concerns don't affect mr marino mr rayner has been here for thirty seven years he came here on a humanitarian parole the almost fifty years old so all the questions we got to notice fair notice the ability to


just yet if the court doesn't have any other questions on a speedy trial i just like that just quickly the trace of counsel issue i think the government's wrong to say that mr reese was complaining about issues that were all prior to november mr


petitioner an aryan applicant rather r e m only played ali was guilty of possession of child pornography but the court said because the that he did court did not have to determine the facts even though the facts were not that


employees are no no your honor we believe that it's our position that they are regular employees and then they meet the competitive hiring procedures i mean they have to literally go back and where they appointed or were they temporary or are


time and time again is an issue for resolution by the arbitrator just as retiree's are not members retirees or not employees correct that's correct i mean absolutely doesn't the arbitration procedure that first


immediately engaged in actions that were designed to investigate drug crimes but yes that's so we have a man who's driving to philadelphia who had a criminal record a criminal rests in the past and says he's going to visit the family i'm not sure how long i'm staying there it's only a


would that do to our precedent that says he district courts discussion at the very instant does not necessarily fit light on what would be done the departure stage and the need to consider all the thirty five fifty three back is frustrated with a sense the court feels to express


well certainly there were nearly your comment when we were here a couple weeks ago you noted that it will take millions of gallons to run one of these wells but it'll take millions of gallons to support the


it using contract principles right i've never directly age from georgia oh in the context of tourette that's correct but if you look at what this court did post or read in the new york shipping association case which


right but here we don't even have to look at a one and two a three because the record draws our attention directly to a one a two an a three are part of the case well the test to determine whether to do the modified or the categorical


nature of the relief side here mandamus i was going to ask you if just a split among the judges in the eastern district of pennsylvania points to


the answer to that question lies in the wording of the anti kickback statute as applied to those recounts but we need to remember that all we talk have talked mostly in you feel about in fact active are a larger


were dependent essentially upon that the government concluding that they had have assisted the government and given substantial assistance and so first of all i would point out that with respect to portrush i would point out the fact that they also brought out


limitations bars any of those claims the district court found that the claims were barred finding that the decision making process that took place in september of two thousand and two was the accrual period the actions at


that her marriage has been crumbling since the year two thousand and she's been in counseling since two thousand and during this time she's been trying to work out her marriage with her husband she has started dating her friend


inside within those documents mr anderson complains about the eighty five charges that violate the treaty so if we're going to construe these prosaic planers pleadings literally like this court is required to do we have to


that it negates an element of murder as was the case with the maine homicide law in money itself then and structures which dilute the prosecution's


left the home with the daughter that was fifteen hours earlier there was nothing that would mean that would not infer that she would be in the trunk of the vehicle the fact that she was last seen in the car fifteen hours before it's


trying to do is give class members realistic information so that they can realistically evaluate because if we send notice to class members that says well if if there were one hundred percent participation this is what they were covering her share would be class members don't realize that that's not going to


precisely and based on that she held the limited recovery for in and out traders reflects a reasonable estimate of the difficulty plaintiffs may have faced in attempting to prove damages suffered by in and out traders in light of the uncertainties of the law court of the supreme court's issuance


decision but she credited bjorn stein holt's explanation that some leakage may have come out before the partial disclosures and was there any evidence your opposing counsel says there was no evidence in the record


tantrums and assaultive behavior led to him being removed he was placed in an emergency shelter with volunteers of america at those two prior placements there was not that the sexual reactivity the sexual acting


finding two to conclude that the source nigger's administration was biased the issue was did the district court based on the evidence before it with regard to coleman's motion make the correct ruling cormack


my colleagues but i don't know how we can make a finding that this was a voluntary statement when we don't know anything about the circumstances of it except that the man was not


motion at the time that you have objection was made so i mean we're left with no explanation for why i made that argument but now i can tell the court that the reasons were multifaceted and one was that it went beyond the


second incident the false statement the false statement that was filed in it for all the later in time when it later in times like i can understand it's the earlier in time when that gives me a degree of pause because by that time at least as the


is certainly objective evidence what could be more objective that he was doing his job right a consulting company comes in from massachusetts and spends a certain number of weeks or months surveying the power company gives a report cards


in the record isn't there isn't in the record don't you say something to the fact that you've had a difficult relationship with him on this case and certainly in court i said that when the magistrate asked me what is your relationship with him in this case i


thank your honour's i'm going to make this very brief i think the issue has been clouded i think the issue today before this court is whether the school district policy needs the establishment clause and it's constitutional and we submit that it is we know that the


anything public record can come in well the problem with that is public records or court filings with information regarding inmates and their offenses well but to some extent that you feel if they've gotten to the point of


speculation but here we are on summary judgment she's got lots of evidence of more mistrust still of the toward her by some of her fellow coworkers based on her gender and to say that is pure speculation that this toolbox that she


tribal affiliation evidence as it would with motive evidence the final aspect of agents of all these testimonies with regard to the number of asylum applications relatively between the gambia


that the trial court said what's your argument counsel said what he wanted to say and the court said fine i hear you i'm fine i'm guilty at no point did counsel say your honor i have more to say away or anything like


can't you can't shoot a trespasser with a with an automatic bow and arrow either absolutely not but you can use reasonable force as necessary to eject the trespasser so there are limits would be


evans doesn't get convicted in front of this jury you're going to be indicted next for that murder no idea if you know whether you've been charged with a crime i think i don't even believe he went


already prepared charges and he gave me i guess a copy of three charges i think it was to the indicate to you that they believe that you shot into the body of the deceased yes did you ultimately admit to them that you shot into the body to the police i admitted that i had at any time did


an important aid for courts seeking an appropriate sentence and help to maintain uniformity in sentencing throughout the country it follows that it is appropriate to consider


plane and its meaning is bolstered threefold first by as the district court stressed by the history of the statutes and their legislative amendments second in the context of the larger federal educational grants again


crime or was it enough i think his phrase was that the officer thought there was something weird through it and that's the that that's the issue that this case


doing home invasion entries into houses where he knows people will be there he's a real desperado this has got to be a felony it's very dangerous get and so i decide


condemnation case in one respect because not only do we have the secretary of energy is determination this line should be built but we have congress's concurrence in that conclusion in the supplemental appropriations act


to that effect meaning to the ownership by the federal government the district court decided these questions as a matter of law and having done so was then presented


you don't hold the asphalt in your tanks over the over the seas it's too costly too expensive out there you got to keep it hot to use it so you drive down as far as you can than the beginning of the next season you drop out if it does not make a difference that


obviously the order itself does not make the findings that we would ordinarily consider appropriate if you for i gather there's no separate certification order because i didn't


right so and i but i'm going to you're more than happy to let the court make a determination on what's appropriate under the circumstances and whatever the court orders is what the court orders then there i can stay here and now the


prison authorities don't have the authority to have their own medical personnel treat an individual and certainly in the context of a prison when you're dealing with convicted inmates there's already been due process and there's already been a trial by jury


competitive market devoid of market competition and that is what the sherman act protects and ensures that is the injury in fact that we alleged how much if any recovery we would be allowed to receive would depend on the evidence of


honor that's correct but that doesn't mean for oil because a merger doesn't because the parties let's assume for the moment that there had been a contract to merge just like there's a contract to buy or sell real estate


no matter what the judge tried to do to measure judges to try to convince him that he was in his best interest to use counsel that this with a good complicated case that there was a there were a lot of issues but he simply refused he was as you said before he was


significant i think and what the jury probably relied on and we defer to them is that within a very short time period after that phone call and after that discussion at ballots i'm going to have my man call you and very vague


there are listed as prices has never reviewed or approved any rate published in any of these indexes and there's no evidence in this record to suggest that that in fact is the case and you stand


that's correct i mean an individual is not entitled to work in the job they're best suited to as long as their talents are utilized and in fact the course of people that have dealt with this question have considered individuals who have police officer and police officer training so there's there's no distinction


conversation between hooves and court bill that however has tremendous relevance in terms of hatching the plan to engage in the witness tampering and the


of the jury and the third issue is it to process issues related to evidence of sexual misconduct that was introduced in the trial and the second trial not the first trial sorry which created the circumstances a


that there was a second trial and unfortunately that evidence was presented at trial several of the witnesses alluded the fact that there was a first trial he was making he was taking the evidence that came out at trial and he was making reasonable


that at this point i understand it was in the past aren't but it's the way he decided to case it didn't matter so he didn't have to deal with it let me go back to the issue of i think you're if i and i mean given that you're asking me now to look at the


would have done me and what my what his story once we it's very very vague terms of how we can understand why any of this matter well i do think there was a proffer your honor the fact that there was a prior relationship was told to the judge to the


doctor's restrictions which ultimately led to the end of an over twenty four year career with this employer would be specific about what you're talking about there of course all right because the county argues that it


some accommodation because it has to be that he does could you to job with or without an accommodation but you're not telling me that we're supposed to start way back before that to worry about what was going on in this case absolutely and that is what we presented in our


just possessed me of my right to the structure and he didn't they didn't just possess him of anything there was never any enforcement action taken by chief davis and the cases that i do your reading of this


the record that would amount to any prejudice unless a court has any other question for me on this i'd like to reserve the balance of my time


them we just want to said nothing and waited for them to move for a default we were this was maybe not as helpful an e mail as you can imagine but it was a helpful helpful e mail and i don't think it's fair to look at it in retrospect and say they could very easily have responded to that by


to the extent that the the effect of not that the is dependent upon her testimony then there's reason to doubt that well i think st you need to consider that and then ask fail jay to give you those specifics to identify why it should be doubted and those don't exist in the


than it is on this record and even in that context the mcindoe court said it's not enough because of the absence of information on proximity duration


honor what this really brings up is that it's really unclear in the record how this happened and to further add to that i would say that it wasn't until we got these post hoc declarations from the government


and thirty six b three a and i just wanted to put that in the record because it does say that it is the fish and wildlife services job the secretary to do the written statement that details how


state montana department just and that but whatever it is you just need to deal with the fact that it's i mean in terms of what you want to do going forward that is probably true i can't prove it's true that that the


moines case from the th circuit where that unquestionably was about the land where the city wanted to oust the railway from using the land down there down main street or or whatever whatever street it was in in the city and so in that case explain that there's


f rd where the court said if we think it is legally permissible and serves the ends of justice and fairness for us to remain to the district court for it to consider in the st instance whether modification of abbott's term of super


an alternative grounds for dismissal in the event this court does not affirm the district court's tech basis for the swans he is the state indispensable we can enter relief as a federal court granting damages for a civil rights violation


declaratory judgment from the court in this case that that the state is free to do what the state is always free to do which is to file felony charges whenever they have probable cause to believe that the defendant for them and it's


vindicate a right that the agency has decided to make available i guess just gets to the question of whether the agency intended to create created right and whether or not it was even able to able to do so given what the congress has always said and there's problems with in trumpeting a regulation in a manner


definitely said that the n c l had not established irreparable harm but i did not actually hear him identify how the adverse effects on the n c l could be remedied by money damages and i'll explain in a minute how that is so but let's start with how


they circumvented controls by creating a distributed network so we wouldn't recognize their repeated searches and they use those repeated searches not to query the network or partly not to query that who is service to get information is specific domains


hearing and so the public information that's out there reveals it's not a big ticket item it's not something that's going to destroy health coverage as we know it as alleged by the


should not have yes i'm sure they've been entitled to amend their complaint to limit their claims to people with such a serious level of hearing loss that


to it and then we've got a policy over here that says those of you who need carnivorous animals which is the exclusion that case you can't access these benefits so those with the disability you need a guide dog can access it here we don't have a benefit in a separate policy here the


absolutely subject to the anti discrimination provision and in terms of disability discrimination section five or four of the rehabilitation act there's no denying that and we're not we're not suggesting that we somehow can have a discriminatory plan that's certainly not reagents argument and i don't believe got to be kaiser's


at five pm yesterday the day before oral argument i have had very little time to look at this we've had thirteen hours that includes time for sleeping for getting here this morning and all of that ok so we have not had an opportunity to address those issues ordinarily we're


miss titus herself has relinquished that right and that is what makes this case no longer a live case her claims are gone they're out and this defendant has no fear or can crn that they will be brought back


skilled or semi skilled work and that really goes to the heart of the problem here merchandising sales what does that mean there was argument in the pleadings over whether we could look at the dictionary definition but if we can't look at the dictionary definition what else do we have that


when when say when we're talking about the method of creation the st white factor the court is supposed to look at the state or that where that entity was incorporated under what


the articles themselves don't mention an intent to share in the sovereign immunity of the tribe and that is the st point in analyzing


that there was more than ample evidence to sustain a verdict under the hangman ridge under the st under the stand alone c b a claim you'd have to say this is the type of


when it did two things one it delegated the full power of the board to a hand picked executive committee and two erected barriers to the information that f c f could obtain essentially


is simply no assessment or medical pinion offered by dr bot that indicated she had any work related functional limitations and that respect to the extent there was no evidence to change


the court is going to essentially allow him not to allow him to to have the benefit of his statement his in court statement that is contradictory and not allow an argument to be based


to avoid a generalized notion particularly in excessive force cases but most of those i think all of the supreme court cases in which they've said this


felix schneider v mcdaniel might be the case that's most directly on going to answer your honor's question because in schneider that defendant attempted to do precisely what mr williams is doing which is arguing


possibly coerced joins in pleading guilty that must have happened in the jail where they were discussing the plea agreement or in the courthouse immediately prior to the defendant pleading guilty or in the courtroom itself in front of the judge on the record


was his nd complaint against him in two months and did a smiley face about how it probably wouldn't be his last a few days after that the internal investigator that cummins had assigned to carry out


investigation and the period after and he didn't comply with the basic instruction that he needed to communicate with


my is probably not really good work on nation and even within the category of outdoor recreation different types of recreation compete with each other which is going for motor vehicle recreation is probably not good for


was going to be impacted there's a clean water act claim and then you know this well we have a longstanding recreations we go there a lot we plan to go there more there that's less and when you don't have that long standing interest in a site then you need to


which was the exclusion of evidence racial statements racist statements that were not known to mr a naga because the jury would be required to find the plaintiff would be required


affront that his son who was standing there who shared his locker was not allowed to get his key and unlocked the locker where other workers were allowed to go get their key it's it's it's a little thing it made me these days we'd call it a microaggression


well to two responses around a number one is a risk factor could be a risk factor even though there are certain aspects of it which tyria lie using now in this record there was not there had not been the introduction of the factor but there could be


emissions knowingly material emissions and under this court's holdings in quality systems which regenerated the holdings in recent online earlier cases knowing access to disputed facts raises a


haven't pointed to any sales that are linked to the actual alleged trade secret information which is what the district court recognized the day judge beckman concluded the they hadn't proved


investigation or alleged investigation was into the desk top that mr castlebury had left at r j b not into the cell phone which has been sort of the focus their new focus of that calf a claim and so any alleged


was but even if that weren't the case as the case progressed and discovery progressed as the court in its order on the motion to compel said i have not seen any evidence of damages a year and a half into the case and it seems to be pure


but if for every project the forest has to look at and maintain ten percent across the entire landscape that's going to ensure that more old growth is purser across the entire landscape doesn't it presuppose


cause violations of water quality standards will require more and different ones now we don't know what more and different ones would in fact be protective of water quality in the future again the state has simply failed to undertake its


that this court can only review legal questions or constitutional claims praising his petition for review but here he challenges only the denial of his deferral of removal under the convention against torture and more specifically the agency's


and i assume then you want us to dismiss on the merits it's our position that this court should dismiss this petition for review because between only challenge and he is raising which is the determination that


and i thought it was really not contested that we reviewed to novo an application of the government acquiesce standard to the facts now i know you don't agree i'm sorry


probably a number of questions there not leading questions and not trick questions i just found this to be very complex so just assumes that i'm seeking information as i read it the joint venture


exclude the highly financed flagship institution university of maryland college park this picture bears no resemblance to the type of de facto segregation that the court had


that all of the elements of the offenses that he was pleading guilty to were present and the offense that included a without consent element was the provision of the sexual offense statute and prosecutor specifically said as to not


to dig into how the process of the settlement came about and to put that before the courts of the court can make its the terminations that in fact this settlement class is appropriate and that some it's fair adequate and reasonable and without someone taking that position


here how was it so that the interests of the class members would no longer be protected by the bond class again your honor because given the


in tor because the courts have looked at the policy reasons behind that judge richardson to encourage that party flight sri perform their obligation and on


transaction what c four does is prohibit some from a double recover i'm going to see for prohibits them from a double recovery right once they're paid by someone who is essentially a guarantor of the principle right that amount they can't get paid in this


to get back the origination years and then they do not have a right to get the origination fee back from the oak municipality if it's a credit transaction as you say then why would the statute cut off the right of the third party


profile it propel asks it allows the municipality to put the debt back on the tax rolls that is a consequence of default right but the leanness never sting bushed until that payment is complete


there must be a debt and and that is governed by virginia law and this case in virginia he tax obligation is not a debt and so i don't think i made that point as well as i could before but that's why it's significant that's what i also what the regulation says that's not


third party financing situation such as a bank like regulations e what this is an assignment but what i'm still trying to understand what i couldn't get you to respond to and you seem to be going back to it is what difference does it make the bank


have given the location for these the spot as they refer to it and the defendant have to be there because he was the person known to the no i hear what you're saying just not can


everyone in the chain the in state retailers out of state manufacturers to negotiate a solution as opposed to exempting the instinct retailers from the thrust of the statute to only regulate outside the state


r incorporated that section fifteen ninety six the extraterritoriality application could not be applied extraterritoriality or retroactively to govern conduct occurring


fifty ninety one at least that allows for special maritime jurisdiction that's also true your honor but the question is whether is whether it extended the simple cause of action as opposed to


said turning to the second point which we sort of previewed here with we're talking about the instructions so this is a question about the extent to which the ale jay's finding relying on the vocational experts testimony can be relied on whether the


is that's a person that you want to have the mind go blank periodically and order caller i'm sure you'll have a lot of sales if in the middle of the call ordering a new sweater the person you're on the phone with can't remember


harper are not as prevalent in the second generation also the poor points out that mr patel you worry has taken this medicine and done well and not


experience any of those significant side the core also found help that the medicine was medically appropriate as a majority of the


responsible for suicide as a result of the product defect in a product liability case before so this would be the first time that that happens and as a matter of law we think that means this was not forseeable i also know that the jury instructions plainly did not


sludge into the ocean and there was evidence submitted to the jury that the the defendants the ocean hope was running its incinerator on a daily basis which the evidence that was presented to the jury said was unusual and would put a lot of


three thirty five fifty three and thirty five seventy two just sentence i mean disparity didn't really come up in the p s r so i'm not sure that if they had an opportunity to jack's prior to them actually being sentenced so i think that falls with under the


at to any prejudice that may have resulted by virtue of the guilty convictions on counts for three six it's the government's submission that for those counts the government the evidence was overwhelming in support of the jury's verdict as


price control it wanted neither the states or the federal government to regulate


that circumstance the court said that was actual notice that there was a lease and that lease prevail but the scenario we have here is not of the second lease it's of the first lease wear


so i would like to address the issues of standing in nominal damages and my colleague mr dunham would like to address which is a break and i understand that those issues may overlap and so we're here to answer questions about all of those to the extent the court would like we don't represent who


hear the entire problem i mean hasn't the government for example reported arrests government employees for gang connections isolated gang leaders in prison in gays in police


c twelve thirty one b three which is not even mentioned the word refugee and which says that applicants must demonstrate that it protected ground would be a reason that their life or freedom would be threatened second and even more telling when


and those references are on pages forty one and forty two of our opening brief each reference was made in connection with asylum applications the cost of court didn't contain a separate section on withholding claims in which it acknowledged the fact that


that to judge wilkinson this point can't you see a day perhaps the day after an opinion comes out in your paper in which the same argument you know making it will be


in a statute there's a if there's a civil cause of action created in the statute that abrogates this immunity you still have to find out in the


persecution and then also with respect to relocation reasonable relocation i did want to mention they didn't look at the relocation issue if she's right


indirect i'm certainly open and agree with my colleague statements that castle and did not specifically address the force clause to address nine twenty two g nine however i'm also aware as the court is that there are a number


supreme court has construed this as being malicious wounding unlawful wounding malicious bawly injury unlawful bodily injury four separate offenses but for the purposes of this case we're willing to take the whole statute on as a categorical matter because we think it clearly qualifies


as some kind of super deputy i mean his his duties are not just ministerial may involve plea bargains and what to offer and want to accept and they involve who to investigate and that


people from being insubordinate but at the point that there is a political let me let me just ask you this you're out of this is a question i would respectfully ask you to think about here because if you're a government employee and


did did concede at his guilty plea that he had made threats and they're certainly there are threatening statements made in the whatevers to be perfectly frank with with your honor


but that's that's absolutely correct your honor but what the government did is when the government uncovered this like i said i've been doing this for forty years to me this really wasn't a tally sheet but i recognized that it did have some i mean he didn't value so we disclosed it we weren't going to hide


again in this is it if the last two years have taught us nothing is there no not all anonymous speech in the first amendment on text is in the same vein as who believes in the federalist papers there is a lot of politically protected


target subjects the mismatch targets objects between the affidavit and the order in the shawn wilson wiretap in the affidavit there were seventeen individuals who were listed as targets objects in the order it was just it just came down to six but then the eleven


rule throughout the preamble there is discussion of the fact that we're trying to identify uncompensated and on reimburse costs there is discussion in the preamble over the fact that for dual eligibles medicaid patients who are also covered by


used mr miller's name so if the proper course of conduct had been taken to the triage or the p s p rather where the agent appointed to do the investigation would have quickly gathered


this court removed any doubt about in the united states versus forrester and as established under the pertinent portion of this court's prior decision in united states versus company now it is well established that the retroactive application of a


guy preaches contract you're harmed maybe that's their thinking but that we're getting in but no they answered the question of harm as to conversion specifically was there can harm on conversion and the answer was yes that well they were yes and that


only says you can't do any false statement in that result prosecution but it specifically rest references false statements on education experience and that right there demonstrates to any reasonable person that the government certainly believes that


liquidation of the liquidation there was evidence in the record of forty seven percent from their expert plus some other factors which is not far off the mark from her forty eight dollars that she found on a


exhibits that were presented to judge when they reviewed to get to forty percent that's their best day and they only forty percent so then you get the forty eight percent and that's is that arbitrary i tender it but


point to that at this very moment but there were cases or we identified where fraud claims were asserted in the state court action and the court allowed the state court action to proceed forward while the non discharge ability proceeding was stated i believe it's


for the specific performance therefore they didn't have because in fact it was just a denial of summary judgment didn't mean we didn't give instructions it was just a reversal on the on summary judgment so that the parties could then go back and try the


approach a frolic it wasn't something they woke up and said they would do but as they were standing as they were sitting there in this car drove by them they in that moment took some underage at this


and the government correctly explain those instructions to the jury throughout the trial in doing so the government consistently referred to theories of salt around the trial theories to read only this court has upheld supplemental


from the evidence and it was very powerful coming from the prosecutor who is the one who had a chance to think about it to craft her remarks to because it was obviously a very considered part of her argument and just


suspicion in a case like this involving a vehicle that lacks license is whether the ambiguity surrounding the vehicles registration status has been resolved that is what would have been required for reasonable


so the question i have is would it be in congress if we were to hold in this case as you suggest that if the trust if you couldn't in demar the debtor couldn't avoid the lien and then claim


intelligent ability to enter his plea at that time that's what renders it unconstitutional and again and again the inquiry here isn't to look to the strength of the government's case and i would direct the court again


actions that caused his counsel to withdraw importantly in connection with that the bankruptcy court continued the hearings out so that a motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment instead


they each have an undefeated specific interest in each one of those notes additionally additionally the opposition thanks at length and provides significant evidence


satisfied again and i'd like to but to sort of reiterate again the contacts over we have been talking about the substance obviously what was already said you think it's important to acknowledge what was before the court but what is before this court is the


that thank you your honors i this was an entire area that i wasn't very familiar with however we tried to take all the correct steps initially to all this motion and seek also a nomad on the discovery of the bankruptcy


if it lacks any evidence of the party's intent to use fair market value has the bio price again here the expressed terms of the lease show that it's the fair market value at the end of the lease that would be the


and the restitution the court ordered was a two hundred and seventy six dollars plus for the crime victims fine that's the problem here it's not that he wouldn't have been complaining if he got restitution ordered at had the sentencing hearing the problem


oeuvre the court noted that consequential damages such as last rent damage to credit loss profits were actual damages or harm that a creditor could show to prevail on this farm element of


defendant did not object to that written report nor did he object to these conditions in january th seen fast forward to the nd supervised release violation and the disposition report


preston providing tobacco alcohol or not to be to barry rosenberg that none of that was ever provided to tim and it was evidence allegedly according to the state's actually or possibly a


the language used compares the witnesses testimony the defendant the money to the verdict of the jury obviously didn't believe him the court moves on pretty quickly


comprehensive and you argue mirrors ways in which you think the statute is unconstitutional or violates other statutes it's kind of a the kitchen sink approach right everything in the kitchen


bridge and most importantly york well york sitting by the as i said the th circuit decision in oregon laborers in which they had exactly the same kind of statistical argument and the reason to get to the reason why not just the precedent but the reason is all the


from a doctor saying that he was he had he was hospitalized for some period of time and i actually had a mental illness that right i found what i had


right what did the court actually decide ok with that route i believe that records decision was that the claimant failed to accurately detail


bankruptcy court every man this for i don't ben among further calculations well thank you very much both of you for your good arguments this will be taken under submission and i hope that the next time we see the two of you it is in a


had to put in the testimony regarding the document the other testimony about this knowledge is also true well me what makes a big not a great views that is that there's an expiration date you have to leave the country it's really


also a cat space precedent saying that touching a tire was not a search the th circuit applied jones and said it is a search under jones and it was not necessary to overrule the prior precedent and i think that is the route the court should take


circumstances where that's not the case but i do think that looking at this as a whole you just don't have that kind of i mean you have to evaluate it is a whole i don't think you can assume that this one comment by the judge which went


she intended to appeal from both but ultimately this court that it appears that only only we decided on one of the issues and it was always a question of my mind whether both orders were being appealed but ultimately the bab ruled and dismissed the appeal from the trustees order


the argument that has been made which says that the entity which holds the appeal rights has to have the same interest in the debtor is not california law the case that the appellant relies on in their


became an asset of his bankruptcy estate owned by as trustee who had a duty to liquidate it when he found the bankruptcy my client stepped up and bought that we paid good money for that right


claim the trial court found the prosecutor credible the trial court expressed the rules i'm satisfied that the district attorney has not engaged in any discriminatory practice by excusing the jurors and this was after the trial court that


arrest a threat of death or serious bodily injury i'm simply an i t date that two members of the cartel entered the residence he shared with his wife and children stripped him of his personal cell phone


because of past dealings that the two of you have had or any number of things but so it seems like we've got a couple of people here are really digging in their heels and there this could have


ninety seven dollars which says a court must make an explicit five is quote the court must make an explicit finding the council's conduct constituted or was tantamount to bad faith citing were way express which is court


do you think it would be fruitful at all for us to say in this case to our mediators from i don't think it's worth spending further time on it but we've spent some time here yes we have and if i could just say


case he chose not to come to trial and he denied course like most people would in that situation he denied it the court and believe beam found there was liability but as to him personally he's the person we're talking about here now as far


most of assignment issue was quite troubling for me i was representing mr larsen it time and mr scarborough went around my back and met directly with mr larsen and bought this claim it's kind of interesting


and for a variety of reasons those states have drawn a different balance between consumer protection and fostering an attractive business environment maza says because how would those states be impacted by a settlement here


states who don't have repeal or laws don't have an interest in having their laws applied to the facts of this case to divide their residents around maty but if there were to be a determination that they do have an interest then you've got a true conflict but with


cried beach it was not revoked for until a year into the case i already been as a baby in the case it was because the city of berkeley raised that issue that this occurred now why is it that i was allowed to participate three year


normal bread and butter diversity claim the plaintiff says i'm a citizen of state x defendant is a citizen of state y and i am more than twenty five thousand dollars to the issue and i asked you if that's


minutes for a bottle i've got a timer that i started myself too so hopefully i can keep track as well you're probably


representing us interests and everything was fine in the litigation his explanation that accounts for the mistah geishas i think the hypothetical of the court will indulge me here will show what i'm talking about here but i think you're misunderstanding my question our role is


information and what it knew i read your two hundred and ninety two pages or whatever it was i didn't see it so there we have a combination of what they do and what they have no right though they they deliberately reckless in not knowing


have occurred and what we have in the record and what the were not actually found was that his lead told him to open up the package because he believed it was suspicious it then the supervisor also believed to contain an explosive demonstrating


relates to her testimony that she shots mister smith because he was reaching towards his waistband and before i discuss the factual the facts more specifically it's well to remember that


comments we can submit a letter or you just let us know but will this the case did not allow it happen to be our case the plane was not allowed to receive any award for pain and suffering


factual determination look to any factors and then they look at how consumers actually read the advertising and we and for instance t v s post on their website testimonials consumers saying they used this product for


even beyond the titles of the studies his own descriptions of the studies make clear that they are not appropriate studies are challenging the general health maintenance and support claims on c b s s labels so to give you an


actually is there a situation where you haven't stopped at upper level when you agree to that upper limit then i feel like it's a little bit difficult to say you didn't know that it was possible that you could get a seventy nine month sentence and then it would be based on a process he did life


same coverage section in the same subsection definitions where they actually used the term named as sure and we all know who we're talking about when that used the term named insured yet they don't use it in the definition


it insured means a the individual named in the declarations and his or her spouse so how does that track


may be somewhat instructive nonetheless with regard to the issue of believe to him and i agree with mr curtis's statements that there isn't a bright line but i i disagree with the conclusion that in this case it was appropriate to do we were


argument is that a pretrial motion should have been filed in this case the rule in this circuit is that a pretrial motion only needs to be filed when the venue defect is clear clear from the face of the


time that the defense had waived the argument this is exactly what the defendant did in the recent marang garcia case that this court recently decided back a few months ago he filed a thirty file the rule twenty nine motion it's not made a timely


california workers must complete twenty five hours of benazir only every three years didn't they must complete at least twenty five hours but of course that's how i understood it i would have been upset if i had twenty six dollars or thirty hours luckily i have more than twenty five hours


when you read you'd be done it's this it's this side looking for sanctions under the anti slapp motion that that has us because if the anti slot motion hadn't been appealed the preliminary injunction hearing would have been hell and your


just a couple of subs nothing since they've raised it st the one point i didn't address was are these joint works based on the evidence presented the answer it seems to me is clearly no most


judge who actually listened to him testify said i find he's not credible that's that's really problematic because these are these are what was going to defense counsel from raising that specific issue nothing


standard here and the factual findings are reviewed for clear error that's an extremely difficult standard of review here the plain language of the relevant guideline definition i think my opponent he kind of blurs


disposed of the merits definitively by sending the merits to arbitration and that that is the difference that that tripped you up in this circuit appeal i don't think any or any of the courts along the


prayer for relief specifically requests medicare reimbursement even fashions a th amendment to profit taking claim for medicare reimbursement which it is sir it is its property


right so these charges establish that there is no no imminence for choir and even the word and even a word like inciting or organizing even a three isn't entirely amusing from this problem right a three is


that involved the element and yet we would believe that that kind of speech is really within the heart of a st amendment for time and again this is an area where if this is true it infects the entire statute there's no need to


recruitment of accomplices i mean that speaks for itself here claimed right to a larger share of the profits of the crime i think that speaks for itself year degree approaches a patient in planning or organizing the offense your point as well say it all happened back it


judgement is it your view that if a trier of fact decide that there isn't substantiation you've got to go to the jury so sort of the reverse of what you're arguing the district


incorrectly blending the preemption and merits in a way that's not helpful at all and is in fact from close by custom so let me just frame where i see the case to me and i think you will lose on preemption but what you are telling


this case it is a substantial evidence standards it's a standard that still applies to step two of the sequential evaluation and the review constitutes i agree with counsel that it is the record as a whole and it's our position that when you review this record as a


at a point where a deprivation of money turns into a threat of bankruptcy that threatens extinction before a right can be vindicated that is irreparable harm well you know of course in


but what you're asking i think what judge bennett and jasim used in fear in the record a genuine issue of material back it has to be material that goes to the question the judge cooper was asking earlier about what's the constitutional court here


some truckers who do store there and who do not stay at the property and furthermore the complaint i noticed said both that that they were residents


of the defendants practice you don't know if these press releases are real there with their the plaintiff could have done more than just report recognized that ordinarily i would expect expect the plaintiff to do more but then it shifted the burden because the defendant


they recognize that there have been successful claims brought by united states nationals right thank you counsel thank you


expectation that it can seek coverage from access without having to justify the prior decisions of its underlying insurers that exhausted those underlying policies that's the point made in the cosco


relied on it before they applied for the policy i don't think there's anything wrong with that i think what's wrong is saying i don't have to ask the question of who was exposed to one of these illustrations and element of the case because i


it's the same as we see in consumer loan financing where you have three days to back out of your home mortgage loan once you sign all the papers but that doesn't mean that you haven't entered into a binding contract it


clear from all the circuits about that there has to be a change in the certification the matts decision from the th are going to that and we don't have a case you don't have a case you only have the unpublished when a lampard case that's absolutely true but all of the courts are unanimous now and the cases are


investors who go to dig up information trade on it and impounded in the stock price just easterbrook and schleicher different context of course goes through that i think pretty well from the perspective of the


that underlies this appeal as stated in gompers vs but stove and range company if a person can set aside a judgement by his own disobedience then our courts are impotent and what is now fittingly called the


and eleven made a request to swiss authorities to to revert to the status quo and exercise that sovereign state authority over bank accounts within its territory to either club back the funds or do something else back nature in order to ensure but


thousand the total aviation case whenever you have actual property located abroad and there is an engram jurist proceeding in the united states the effectiveness of any judgment always relies on the


redundant and suppose if we only look at the examples and things that are substantially similar i do think your honor we meet that as well because the the strand that we think you see among the examples is


clarifies existing law so it's really the classic circumstance in that carter case that the california senate site really really i think captures at this was the legislature saying we want to make clear this has always applied but we're going to put it in the statute to make clear so we


there any other provisions in there like that that nymphs is ordered to i mean i guess it's really a question for for the other side but do you are you aware of any other provisions in there i mean i'm not in this is really the might very much a subsidiary matter this is not this is not the


reinitiated foreclosure proceed post bankruptcy was only about the arrears and so is it your position that that arrears separate from an ongoing payment was not subject to the discerns it was absolutely not your honor and it's clear


states real estate you're initially claimed by the plaintiffs was that there were four pieces a real estate in new york which were which in which germany was engaged in commercial activity i think they've dropped three of them and


to result in a plea is not something you know there are many cases where people have complained about the lack of the rd point where it was literally on the morning of jury selection beyond that your client moved for a suppression hearing we three months in a


ball which is why it's expressly limited to trial and not a hearing but yes indeed that the trial in preparation for the trial including dealing with an informant a good home and i suspect would


if you receive a lump sum distribution then technically that would be just like the end of the ten year period after the fixed payment period or five years right that's when your benefits that's when you receive your benefit


matter i have i have a motion for the court the circuit court the right your problems limited role let's do this why don't you start arguing when we get to the


answered my question thank you very much and here's do you have any questions now thank you so mr all i'm going to let you take a couple minutes a rebuttal even though we've kept you beyond your time so let's hear from mr


does not afford due process two parties appearing before it in fact the judge has concluded in her opinion that the due process protections created by the canadian bankruptcy court provided in the


improperly drawn from french brief without taking judicial notice of the french brief and without an evidentiary hearing as to the appeal from the dismissal that appeal is controlled by judge walker's opinion for the court in palin


i don't i don't believe that's the case your honor because it was a any reference to as i recall to said jem sajan had been used as a term by the other side throughout their brief and this was or this was


well why why are we your honor to the extent you're suggesting harmless error was a possibility here i would start by just pointing to how stringent the standard is and how much it favors my client the standard for how most


not apply in this exact situation


excised from the case the guidelines would end up exactly the same the address briefly the calculation of loss first the calculation of loss that was used here was a virtually identical as i said to the one used in


regard to computer access i think that's clear your honor and i think one important point about that is i don't think we typically read a district judges sentencing memorandum as we would an ambiguous statute he's he's talking he presided over two days of hearings


has failed to show that there that the court had abused its discretion in st ordering a new trial secondly imposing sanctions it shows in the wreck in this case shows that


point and to step back just a little bit none of this helps on this appeal none of us helps plaintiffs on this appeal why is there still unable to show irreparable harm they're still not able to show as organisations that their constitutional rights are going to suffer any any harm and


enterprise on is you have to show that the alteration was done with actual knowledge that they didn't have permission of the copyright owner that's been established by the answer and it's also been established at trial by the testimony of gregory brown by the


almost begs the question or circular in that it's saying that well you know just the fact of undocumented status means that you are someone who sort of shouldn't be trusted with guns because well after all you're undocumented live in this sort of secret world


before we see just under in their intermediate screw need a government can't just again just get away with what this court call shoddy data or reasoning there is no data here in fact about the data it is is it helps us which is that undocumented immigrants are no more


could have prevailed on her failure to accommodate claims without ever proving any intentional discrimination and we believe that's enough to bring this within the policies coverage now but clearly the complaint does also


around the next day that had not already been influenced by the judge's erroneous instructions that induce unanimity they still would have been there the next day so


with respect to that note by the court and the comments the following day an allen charge is is coercive and that's why the court has indicated that


determination but i think that in this case when you have that abundant evidence of good character what a judge can't do is again effectively sentence for another offense as a matter of substantive reason finally the question about what we should do and


since it generally courts to side with the scope of the orders but but anderson says nobody's overturned anderson are circuit the anderson says that there's an inherent conflict so i'm telling you if


is one court in the united states in the bankruptcy court judge drain can enforce the order of other judges but i would also add two other points st of all anderson said and we think it's binding precedent the fact that it's brought as a class action does not change the


severe from to get it but the procedures are the same well not necessarily your honor because when we refer to prejudice we mean prejudice to one's litigation prospects so the p l l ray is a mechanism to keep cases out


maybe some it up in a sentence our position is that it is clear that when days thirty one dollars comes and there's no decision on the grievance appeal mr hayes knows that to exhaust for the purposes of the p l r he needs a


because you know this is this case is a great example because the the breaching fiduciary has asserted over and over again that that there wasn't breached that this was a top up plan and somebody who doesn't know whether


and the record of the case reflects that in two thousand and four mr lowell mr and ms launder vale held a meeting of the employees of c t c corporation to advise them that this that the corporation


misconduct by the defendant and those are quotes from the restatement compromise is the word used misconduct is the word used and see mercy that was what was at issue at lanning ok if you look at the sentence and there are two labels used there's affirmative indications of innocence


appeals position was but what that label was in lending itself was taking the provision i just read to you six hundred and sixty dollars which lists compromise misconduct and mercy and crossing out the mercy exception if you look at what landing was saying


saying creating a subsequent work a product because of that or based on that that's the derivative work term that's that they were using they were saying it's not an independent violation by mr gainor to have used it and to learn the


plaintiff one we did assess segregated damages claim that the plaintiff which constituted a th case only to do with the beats assignments so the three quarters of what we're talking about


court my grievances with that order and judgment were denied their grievances with that order and judgment were denied the order was affirmed now of the basis of the court's order not to extend the


rowdies claims pursuing to sixteen a one s to a and b as against appellee under sixteen a one s b one a plaintiff muscle ledge defendant is a furniture of information the defendant received notice of the consumer dispute from a


as an individual claim in arbitration or in small claims court as he agreed to do he wants to come in to this federal court house on the premise that his multimillion dollar calf a class action is a dispute as we just said that somehow qualifies


discovery there is a companion case involving the buffalo police it's not a companion case there's a separate case involving the buffalo police and you have to understand when it when you talk about discovery this mr ortiz


review boards found them libel they must be libel when that is not necessarily true because the two different entities are applying a different standard well that was skewered by the court instructions a court gave a very limited instructions regarding


foley and a case called city of reno vs conn from the th circuit that th circuit case went up to the supreme court and was reversed based on its decision and conduct the thompson that's the decision i


for was glowing his career the challenge has been implicitly conceded by the government have been mistaken since the government makes no argument that the offense is a crime of violence he seems you have one where many


own that was your intent in engaging in these transactions i know that you and there's no speaking of any other intent here i just don't see how please


of the offense charge offense charged in the indictment because here the magistrate judge said as an essential element the intent to promote and and and and that was not in the disjunctive so he pleaded guilty to a


looking at from the point of view of the judge guilty plea is our place a huge burden on the judge they often occur without prior notice to the judge and he hasn't had time to elaborate preparation such as the u


attorney should have done and would have done and the judge is suddenly has to has to tell the defendants the elements of the offense and all conquering telling the elements of the offense is not always easy to do in this case it was a mistake a


fees that ok you get the money you're eligible you said that would comply yes your honor yes it would comply with the question however i am i right it would not comply with paragraph three of the judgment


cocaine conspiracy existed but that hicks did not participate in it and then rd in so far as the rico conspiracy charge is concerned this means three things


choosing to either not take medicine or take medicine that's causing a disabling limitation when you could elect a different course that eliminated the restriction then you don't have a disability so that's consistent with well established law it doesn't


satisfy the elements of the sixty we try to give meaning to the language of the sixty we tried not to think of it as as a drafting error and so we looked at it with without and on into and based on that we believe that in accordance with the plain language of the


conclude that there was not probable cause that that may well be the case but don't need to decide that no reasonable to you or i could find the lack of probable cause that that's very different than saying it


i mean it's not related to the content at all it's not related to the content whereas the child pornography is related to yes your honor but but again such group implies if the if the statute


ordinance was so content based that you know as i say nobody on the court thought this except it was constitutional but the fact that the court wrote broadly doesn't mean to say that it somehow meant


ation of my closing argument i was summarizing the my opinion of the evidence at that point not making a direct reference to the the comments i just made about the braille letter and then the


limit are almost guaranteed but you know and i don't mean to push you into this other issue because i know you're going to get to it but it strikes me that another kernel of clarity is the channeling the kind


the infringement took place or more sixteen two thousand is that grip the allegations are two fold first as force trademark infringement of the


procedures and the time limits the political to such procedures including a statement of the claimants right to bring a civil action under section five of two way of react following your argument that during


thought i would disagree your honor respectfully in this case the dish of court and the reason is that for this is the district court lied on a number of factors firstly the arguments of counsel and it's clear from the arguments of both parties both the government and the defense that the


regulation but this nails it down that's the way the secretary interprets it and if that's so it cannot include the new jersey people because everybody charitable people because everybody agrees they're not eligible for medicaid so end


formula that provides for damages for a drop in the shares why do you need the with deficient market theory or inefficient work in theory section eleven doesn't doesn't contemplate any of that well for two reasons first of all encompassed


the july twenty ninth and thirtieth press release and conference trigger another thirty percent drop you get a thirty percent drop to that another thirty percent drop and it keeps heading down to the point that they say well you know what we've got to restate our goodwill given


the fact that the


no argument that i've seen anywhere other than hearing you make it now that this was a breach of contract but not an impairment for contract clause purposes isn't that argument waived


you left out substantial damages that your earth at the suffer had suffered because of litigation expenses exceeding twelve million dollars completely left out of his bottom line and house and those are things that seemed to me that