credit score but you've been telling us that the length of time in bankruptcy is really kind of what matters about whether some is going to get a loan so what is the inaccuracy here that relates to that so the problem the problem is if you have a if the public record sections


about saying you should have listed my debt as what it was under the plan not under you know you should investigate how it should be reported bankruptcy there's no allegation that a dispute letter said you know put it


more employee right and so it doesn't say anything about the employer going after the person who caused the and he didn't insure no this is absolutely as to the third party and there's four cases there are four cases


that because there's a crossover we would never get to a medical malpractise case for any veteran you would never because they're always going to be intertwined so if you see a seems to preserve medical malpractise just us and tell us what what that means i agree


already been made that this person is intitled to benefits but the failure to administer those benefits created a malpractise case it should be fought in court and not exclude by five eleven the last issue i want to hit very briefly is the reason this case is not barred


parties attached numerous documents not in the record to their pleadings there's no affidavit from the perrys there's a saying you know this was a fee or the


twentieth well that's a rejection of that offer when the insured makes a pays a late fee that's a counteroffer that's construed as a counter offer which the insurer then has an opportunity to you to accept or not accept


exactly eight dollars more and when you couple that with the fact that the installment knows that notice says if you pay after and this is a quote the cancel date if you pay after the cancel date we may charge you an additional fee so maybe i jumped to conclusions


norman so if you give a cancellation notice that says pay us money and there's a reinstatement notice and you don't explain what that is for then you


into this so called looking forward looking backward analysis i don't i don't really understand how that makes the difference in terms of you know whether the argument goes


trivial violation or a minute or important violation so you know if a you can manage to prove that they did not in fact pay large amounts of money to people and that if we're talking about a starbucks gift card or something maybe they can convince a jury that's not a material


which is it enough that your client says that just didn't happen and you mean it without relying on his own effort you know with the i'm sorry without relying on the ones that the judge excluded from whatever source was out there ones about


happened relates to the april eighth counseling for the lower sales he denies that occurred of course he was discharged for violating the company's conduct policy the other


limitations may interact with one another it makes a difference say if you can do the job of a lawyer and the artist ten percent of the day as opposed to say fast food worker or a parking lot attendant or even a security


husband's cases over the past ten years there were fourteen cases filed within the seven years of the two thousand and seventeen case that was filed she filed her most recent chapter thirteen case on september twenty


a being performed in that order so i guess i'm not positive that i read the board of how to read this portion of the board's opinion whether it is and obviousness determination which might be the on the scope of the petition or whether it's actually a finding that


example that actually provides written description from what's in the claim correct but the law does not require that there be a specific example that has all of the elements of the claim for there to be written description


mrs garner can ritter self of these properties is to find an owner who will agree to take over the restrictions which is exactly why it was such at a fire sale she had to take such an extreme loss upon that


then there's no dispute that in this case there have there is no use of the of the oakridge process currently commercially so they're doing pure


mean the infringement is based on the i'm correct claim construction but regardless of what the claim construction is the judge demonstrated inside of the evidence that they were using and selecting settings according to the ways described in


good morning hours never please the court i think the place to start here is the plains and as the court has pointed out there is nothing in the claims that provides for the central monitoring device to any particular action


does or when and then it goes on to say as well as a portable monitoring unit and here's where the claim does provide some details it says the portable monitoring unit which is the patient side part of the device must be


that the actual formulation that was being used by those authors in those articles was necessarily the very formulation that's being reside in these claims and so even


the determination on the ratings action that was taken that's what seventy one of the five b is about you have one year to file the notice of disagreement on that rating decision that was made by the


rights notices the veterans court in this case correctly decided that the board's finding that the a case did not involve a simultaneously contested claim


please the court counsel were here today because the board although it cited the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim construction standard well beyond that standard in committing to basic works


semiconductor and that's shown if you look at column five where it says when it talks about the operative semiconductors film six it is pointing to the film six in the finished


found no independent basis for the counter claim and then dismissed it as such there's also whether the the transaction and occurrence is the same that the


and that it was over and i think that that's just illustrates the need for the questions from the hearing officer to be coming directly to the veteran and there were there to be some clarification of you understand this is being given up forever not forever but


done is that the piece of paper with the hair follicle test was part of the record before the poured there is no supporting testimony that that help care for alcohol test has any relevance to the urine


standard certainly then that's a bit of the standard for civil litigation where the preponderance is more likely than not there is no benefit that will be here even if mr young was able to show that these two options were equally likely he would get the benefit


the limitations in the or the specifications to create limitations of the claim but i think in this case it's really nothing else in the in the claim language or the specification that gives it caps waiting any other maybe


stake here was a subsidiary construction that the board adopted which was that the map of transmission paths of the first network had to encompass that circumstance in which there was only one


examined the fifty and fifty five decisions did not discuss whether or not the board or the v a in those decisions met its statutory burden to


retraction system and body meant some citations to the patent but i look at retraction as part of the function of that claim it says it reacts by this is your arguments where the correspondence structure is proving that he's


especially when you think about all of the individuals who do not have pre established links relationships or connections between their bank accounts so here we believe that that is very much an abstract idea and that i


agreement if there are no further questions we respectfully request the court to decline review of this non final decision and dismiss the appeal or in the event the court elects true view the merits of mr cox appeal we ask the court to affirm the veterans


there they have to be good point but the question is what it claims actually say and what does the evidence of record in this case actually show on the administrative record we have a decision word for it says let's


in detail well like that why isn't it what the green brief said which is that the administration as ox doesn't do anything and a chemical level to cure people that are not good response


resume in front of it when it's trying to determine and pay rates but it's absolutely reasonable for pay panels to make requests for resumes in order to have all that information available to


be clear and you have any expert testimony that are in use prior art rock which means something other than radius we did not


yeah there i think the problem is at the fork we find with the board's decision it is that they're there referencing motivation from musings ideal square wires and that's why i


undisputed and uncontroverted expert testimony from dr klopp who explained in detail well why artisans would understand that our means radius and now mr cotton can raise an argument


and i think it's a function if you look at it functionally either it's final or it's not if you label it as something or the other i'm not sure that that we should just construe it as an order accepting the stipulation for purposes of entering a


contrast to other cases like electric power where it is just collect some data and present it like content extraction which is organized data and i think what's important is that in the step two analysis there are other ways to do it mean that step


the expert said mr webster said you could have done it without that intervening step the two in steps in other words are the two end steps done as fast as they can be and here they alternately weren't and that shift constant shifting provide position


in service military accidents one involving the better being ejected from the truck at twenty to thirty miles per hour and the other involving a car accident the last ration is for the skull they require x rays of the skull well did anyone say that hispanic


they said the more likely to tell a g s for this veteran are highly probative and those are the board's exact words they had a chance to say that this is just a passing reference or just a general recitation of risk factors and did not know that there was a general knowledge that he has


whether or not would agree the ethnic classification that he believes existed in that examiners opinion that he believed existed in that board decision he has no ability to argue how those were weighed out before the veterans court so that denial of the substantial right is prejudicial to


outside the statutory authority of the that people have with right or wrong can we do that kind of partial decisionmaking i haven't looked at that particular question so but i think that in this case i think that


like this one where the change by the district court simply moves one of the issues before the court there is four other issues before the so forth that are the core issues on appeal and


they argue that the second sentence really is their venn diagram that they put in there in their brief which by the way is not something that was a record evidence during negotiations that's just a demonstrative that they put in their brief


even filed a response or shows up into the i p r if a pet owner chooses not to even respond to an ip are the board still must state a sufficient legal basis to invalidate each claim that's within the regulations in that state by aqua products that is essential for the agency to do


through twenty nine your honor that the when we're going to get to whether cato should be combined with clout maybe maybe you should get to that i mean that's just what you were interested in short so if you


just look away from and it doesn't exist anymore once to be clear it's going to do rulemaking one and it was true but like other rules and other doctrines there are rules and doctrines that come after chevron deference principles have been used to determine


would not have been extinguished seems to me to be not helpful to you but helpful to them in other words they're saying they could say well of course we didn't seek a declaration here because the british courts would give a full faith and credit we had to wait


explain even if you don't agree with the government that the government shouldn't have to clean up any sludge from the non afghan's products there is still a way


local controller so there's a reference to cost even there in the background section but i pod as it was the other that the board had relied on in that institution decision with respect to the different record honors


assert that the defendants improperly conflate that with somehow that being the consideration that the bottomline is lighter wise would not give up this patent which has made hundreds


symes it's fifty eight ninety five see a quote from the relevant article which talks about the consistently high levels of activity and the success with utility in medicine for that if you look at right guess what piece fifty eight ninety three says


the supreme court cited the very statute at issue here georgia's party to a crime statute sixteen yes to that twenty and both appendix a and appendix e as part of the baseline against which california is aiding and abetting was measured and i think that provides


town was surrounded they had pushed rail cars to block the roads if the hospital had no oxygen infants were dying in the hospital oh it was complete chaos and those facts were an rebutted


we go to that if you don't mind just for all of the all of the victims again there is testimony about things going on that day so a lot of it was contested and in fact there were two witnesses who actually testified that they were coerced to give false statements but for


wrongful not intentional and not malicious so i think they agree with us that willful willful intentional implies something more than intentional implies maliciousness and in fact if you look at the jury instructions on punitive damages it actually says you


in the landowners response brief that somehow the jury found that six sixty four acres of property was well taken the numbers just don't add up even if four point seven nine acres was in the strangle in the south western portion of the


they were to about a few days apart they have no opt out ok so the fifteen that i'm sorry the fifteen does that meet the b r seems to me that one formally came from when correct or when them sent it through a rd party or some such so


provided in conjunction with the signing of that fax of that franchise agreement and like some other old time twenty years before or five years hence there was a fax number provided or did the two in your mind need to be fused so that the four


conferences were really nothing more than come meet the vendors come meet the products and services that we offer hey guys make sure you're all in compliance with wyndham standards how would you like to be contacted by these vendors because that's the whole point and both


to those people the jury thoughtfully applied the jury instructions and acquitted and so it shows that the jury did understand those during instructions and understood that they had to apply them individually as to mr gumbs is intent and actions towards each


own admission has gone by this house two or three times driving very slowly well the average citizen is going to look and say well i want to what's going on with that car but again that's not on the tape when we


property that's the requirements to michael modified transfer i told him about that also tell him that i was sitting in there with a five thousand dollars bond for a misdemeanor trespass charge the


what they proved perhaps was failure to comply with the conditions but it's there's two different doesn't that ignore that has participated in there was and i t p contract that set forth what the


and in fact i think it's important as is something the district court is a fundamental error in the district court's opinion that we have it's way throughout the opinion is the district court recognized and acknowledged that we have shown improper influence and improper direction


section one hundred eighty three and in the manner in which the district court upheld that statute and claimed it was still constitutional he can't even bring a direct action against the party to that contract so the constitutional concerns are manifest


well yes and what you're saying is you could then argue forever how about when is it that you have to do have to comply or not not forever i think or how to write how long well


shares because this is an award for a monetary amount to my client if they believe that once they've cysts satisfied that obligation in full that my client has not honored or they have have the puts back they can go and seek remedies


whether the use is for an unauthorized or unlawful purpose will definitely or will necessarily be a fact dependent question in the hall itself the the current crime that was charged again was this the


conceivably would have changed the probation officers recommendation and might then of the fact that the district court's decision to correct your honor it i take the point it's actually it's a very close call i think in this case but i think what's dispositive


is no that's a normal circumstance and that would require the prior rule of the town in commercial zones or nonresidential zones sound is less of a concern but it can't it can't be right that every single permit ing


forty eight and forty nine of two of seven because musical performances are kind of singled out from other forms of the expression and there is a burden put on them to have to get a permit or conform to an outdoor venue requirement in order to play musical performance


sixty eight she testifies sorry got the wrong cite she testifies as to the distinction between the scieno where the say no took over all the


you look at their argument and this gets back to what i was saying earlier they want to argue on the one hand that the reason for this new position had nothing to do with her f m elaine the decision was made before she went on f m l a


car and therefore interfering with an officer's pursuit of a suspect or someone could shoot out a lock to open a door to escape while officers are approaching thereby intimidating those officers by using a


so these losses and expenses are not totally limited to the i r s is not saying you never can take any of these you can take some of them it's just just has to be characterized and one reason that this particular case is


our jail security officials with a much different set of rules and jobs performing reviews of medical diagnosis is not one of those jobs and just like we have in the


was two hundred and ten thousand dollars and then separately at the restitution hearing he held him responsible for around one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and that amount was roughly the same as the i mean the restitution amount the same as the amount in


want to plead guilty he can now come before this court on any claim on a stricken claim on an involuntary his claim and say the exact opposite which is if the consequences automatic removal i want to go to trial those are opposites that is why he cannot


his statement to law enforcement that he planned to sell the gun for a pound of dope we don't have any more information regarding what he planned to do to whom he planned to conduct the transaction so i don't


aim another felony offense that is any type of drug offense satisfies this in answer meant if that gun has the potential to facilitate that offense regardless of its proximity so in other


the district court could have reasonably inferred that not only did he intend to go out and purchase a pound of dope for his own personal use but that he then further intended to traffic it or distributed by selling it to pay bills


what if the statement instead had been something like the one damn i committed a bank robbery with a gun while we would still be under clear air review and so the question would be rather the district court could have reasonably drawn that inference


general allegations about the subcontractors work that were incorporated into the allegations against the additional insured which is the entire argument on this appeal in your honor in your own opinion judge


were two ronald knights one of whom was abuse and one of whom was not one of whom was caucasian one of whom was not we're not disputing the fact that mr knight ronald knight was at that school were saying so if he


was a person he had in his school so overall sosa had the same mitigation that was brought out in post conviction and


aggravators drop away for us here you don't have that right see aggravator and porter drop away it did on the direct appeal you're correct so i mean isn't it a little bit different from porter in the sense that the delta


does and he the drug dealer doesn't get arrested and isn't that explosion i still stand by what i said there's a difference between getting compliance in the context of a police officer every officer theft


evidence again that he searched the same and they twice so even if he did it over a course of time we do not know that there was this course of conduct that went to a specific inmate and i think that's the fundamental problem with the government's case here is that there was


but the babysitter would have coverage for herself in my vehicle if she was in her own vehicle that would not be something that my insurance would be required to cover so now we need to look at the policy


there are two interests protected by the big boobs the code one is there will be additional money available to mr factor to pay off that although doubt a creditor of d c t one of his creditors which is the good gateway


knowledge by my client at least that he was aware of this agreement and the conspiracy which would have to happen before all right thank you very much thank


approach but here they chose again if you were talking about intentional discrimination if you read their complaint you would think they'd be would be presenting direct evidence of discrimination they have some seventeen paragraphs of the complaint from paragraph twenty one dollars to thirty eight dollars talk about the


comparatives here was flawed from the beginning and dr ayres admitted in his final rebuttal report that his charge was just to find situations where the minority had a higher loan price and to ignore situations where the minority had a more favorable price


as opposed to objective criteria then if an expert does put in evidence and there is a competing views of experts then that is something that is properly going to go to the jury so is that how we kind of draw the sort of this a line around this


that made him think that lights would be safer or healthier and as the st district court of appeal said and whitmire it's not enough to just say you thought based on the descriptors that the product was healthier you have to show how you relied


you all have to ask yourself is did judge rogers commit clearer with this finding and i just don't see how she did it this is a this the clear air standard is as you know very deferential to the district court i mean if two permits if there are two permissible


found correctly in the first prong of which are is also protected under more stringent let's go back to the original complaint you originally complained that the doctor's privileges had been wrongfully terminated and that they were essentially being walked out


they have been unfairly discriminated against in violation of law from being able to practice in at queen's that's one lawsuit that's the one that's the case in chief here but we've got this little pseudopod


of this particular confrontation clause issue and in my fondest dreams i would like the court to address both of them and they were a bold decision the first which was the primary basis of the trial court's ruling is that there is a


and that involves a prison transfer and the prosecution made the same argument in the trial court adopted it that there was no proof that it was part of any agreement with the witness and what the fifth circuit said was and this is the quote what tells of


impossibility test and it ignored altogether the obstacle prong of the test it failed to even assess whether proposition two hundred presented an obstacle to the means and ends of federal law rife with


nature of the skiing is a legally protected interest that we have to reckon i would cite your honor to northeastern florida chapters of the associated general contractors


here dr hobson was the plaintiff he won but it looks like it looks for at first blush like he lost on paper but the key thing is he won his he got out of this this contract that he sued for fourteen days to get out of


consolidating recommitment petitions the court noted that delay has been a problem and it granted him relief that granted him the right to a trial forthwith and since that time that writ came down in january of zero


obligation so it looks like the whole thing became by operation of something part and parcel of what they were arguing about that happened when the decision was made but there was no effort at any


and go ahead and do it as long as you meet that arbitrary standard that's simply shouting in the back door which you act like you're not closing the front door peel board certified civil trial


sham it would pain pain management five thousand people are not even licensed they don't have the licensed medical professionals eighty percent grandfather and even they can say by the agency's approval


turn down a position consistent with the law in the case law that reasonable accommodation and interactive process having been offered a reasonable accommodation and employer cannot be unreasonable in


counting down the great thank you to enter a constitutional principle that manifest itself across numerous dock trial areas of the criminal law is that racism that contaminates the


surface to be the sort of fellow who would be knowing a fellow like mits and yet many years his junior and apparently in different social circles and so a comment is made well the asians are a tightly knit community and so


patterns that's permissible evidence and what find is a social pattern like i don't know college boys drink frat boys drank and that seems to me perfectly and most of all at what point is


that insurance plans can reject people on the basis of their being too high risk not in california not in this limited circumstance one zero one two three point two says that


if it was on the in flight magazine then of course you could have on board or all warnings you could have warnings on the safety car the f a a regulations actually allow and account for airlines supplementing the warnings that are mandated by the f


also the document that makes it clear that a buyer cannot rely on these kinds of salesman's representations when he turned for a moment to the second died


of legal error that were brought up by the appellant number error number one or what they're calling error number one is basically pro evidence argument that was never made at the trial level was never included in the trial


the validity of the integration provisions and whether they bar the claims that were being made as a matter of fact one of the quotes that's in there doesn't fact a dent if i add as a parole evidence rule argument the point here is non an evidentiary question the point here


effect and let me let me say if it was a strip search sergeant shift still can't possibly have any liability in this case why because he was not told in advance that they were doing a search he didn't know it was going on i think if he's made


factor just in closing your honor and your honors i'd like to mention that the massachusetts state supreme court's conclusion was not an unreasonable application of supreme court while they looked at the case they looked at


directly by mr blankenship the minute those funds rolled into the moment he received a distribution of those funds whether he chose them into an ira whether he chose them to go into his bank


purposes the degree thing has a little sad and sort of kind of a merits question that's correct whether it violates due process i'm not saying it is what i'm for the question i'm raising is if it might be a due process


that there is not that there should be a distinction between the tribe and casino and that the district court didn't do the proper context to a factual analysis but as this court is clear from the court's questions is properly focused on what the


a situation where they cannot for the term in this matter it makes clear that any the final word is in the plan document the plan document is readily available under the law it can be requested it can be inspected at the plan's headquarters that can be inspected the employer's


forty five to sixty perhaps approximately days from trial in this case and on that topic with regard to the second of the


counsel for you time to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action the thirty days comes and goes and no no attorney's fees are paid no request for an extension of time and nothing so that the


concerned this with you've got inmates being told all you have to do is allege that i was frustrated i can guarantee you having done this work for a number of years that you'll be seeing tons and tons of complaints making that simple allegation without any background facts


treated he felt that maybe he should take it at that point in time how nsel is the one who then discourage that instead you know this let's do this first it will always be open so not advising him


surely duties to these clients i have i deny that i object to it in the sense that this if there was no conflict among these four gentlemen they in fact all four gentlemen testified in the


was compensation you can't i mean getting down to work a line of contributed nothing they got this building they got the cash flows like at the economic interest it's not fair this is an equitable issue


address the first amendment question that pickering was used by this court in two cases that were cited by the defendants a first was lumped in versus brown and the other was peterson versus hewlett packard


running governmental workplace


prospect of relief that was we believe we submit the judge walker correctly concluded that this case raises a very narrow factual question of this particular flyer and that the parade of horribles and the slippery slope that are


very well aware one nine hundred eighty one nine hundred eighty three it started with rule eleven and and i got caught in the middle of that but i'm not justifying what happened to me or exonerating my conduct i'm only saying that the


specific enough to show that there is a substantial a substantial overbred factor and effect on protected first amendment conduct and that hasn't happened here


hard to to dispute that in court speech goes beyond what happens literally in this courtroom in court speech includes filings and pleadings that are made with the court in court speech


limited well first of all i would submit that what mr lambert is arguing is not necessarily that there should be prison resources allocated to read every letter and not that every inmate should be entitled to send letters but rather the should there should be


little tricky because ultimately what's being reviewed are grueling as of the bankruptcy court the district court's decisions are the procedural framework because we had to file an appeal from those decisions


relevant question in how well because these are weight bearing devices these are actually devices i think i heard was charles mr charles suggest that the nail is part of the process to create the healing the healing that


are two loud how can anyone even get within their own frame how can i self regulate myself in my sound to know whether or not i'm through that in fact what they say is that it one time they came back the police came back and he said well now the


and respond to that they're taking a statement out of the ninth circuit prior opinion and also that just a court opinion that they're required to show intends the case was very clear that in an


now the employee handbook forms evidence of are part of the whole employment relationship contract the case law basically says a waiver has to be clear but the case law doesn't require that they wrote that the


generally the commission has set junie rates for qwest in a separate docket because it serves the bulk of the territory in arizona to kind of get down to the heart


progressive not for profits explained this jeopardizes the core function of not for profits showing their participation in public discussion about public issues while this case can be readily resolved


trial courts didn't really announce a test but basically said if there's anything in the language that suggests that someone could view as positive or negative about the issue itself that reflects a view


sixty's congress was confronted with the situation that private foundations for misusing their funds private foundations unlike public charities are not subject to public scrutiny and public control and public contributions you have a single donor and a


st place so without any notification to counsel that a stay was available or necessary the record indicates in this or lopez on how was was not capable of seeking that kind of relief on his own that


the organ courts are unanimous in saying that contempt is not a conviction i mean another way of looking at the question is you can go through the matter of a slam on islam as our door which says that it has to be a genuine


and mash additionally there are a number of experts on that page that i think are relevant but it's clear that the mash which is installed by driving bolts through the mesh into the top of the mine it's installed with the


that he could still do the job notwithstanding the need to i believe he did your honor there was a lot of testimony to that effect in the john talking about to say that he did that in his first opinion instead of his second opinion he did do it in this first opinion and he said he could return to work


my copy of morality and i'm happy to submit supplemental authority on that but again turning back to the context in which the miller case and the morality case were judge it was in not only was it in in absentia case but there was objective


but i think here what's clear and what this court has is this thrust upon me and on numerous occasions is that the board in immigration appeals doesn't deal with california law doesn't that's not one of the statutes that they


of the circumstances here which is what the real a real i d act requires and his and his explanation that he knew it was a congress party member but he never heard the name before and especially in light of the fact that his


you know i know counsel say well every every case stands on its own facts and of course there are every every case has unique facts but i mean the basics are the same corporation sells all its operating assets and it's holding nothing but cash and


called mr philips is an adverse witness and his testimony supported the belief that the transaction as he understood it would would be held up and his memorandum the contemporary now how could he opine on that when they told him the


that you contributed to the company it talks about what your basis is says nothing about offsetting gains and losses so that's that's a red herring so can i just go back to the insolvency question because i thought really the


relocation outside of the


statute was was an act it is one in which it was presumed that the person would have a right to counsel the same right to counsel that of cruisin in removal proceedings generally and i'm missing something here it's not a criminal case


to work for free ordinarily they require that the client come up with some money and the client doesn't come up with the money they don't get a lawyer for that hearing and here it looks like at both levels he was invited to have a lawyer


persecution i mean do you have any down leaving aside the particular social group question which i know is kind of in flux but leaving that aside that she would had a an incredibly strong past persecution claim with


throughout where it's microphone issues the immigration judge an interpreter are clearly coaching him on how to use a microphone a couple pages after that the interaction that was just cited petitioner checks in with the judge and says how is my level how am i doing i think it was very


in this case we knowledge that the b i a has deemed the language of the personally use exception to be interchangeable with the language of the simple possession exception however this and undercuts the plain language of the statue the term


analysis so that's that's what i'm saying i don't understand the board i'm sorry if the court determines that there's a nexus here based on the record i think you're going beyond what the the board


make the finding as to the first half of the test but like you i'm not sure that he did make forty and i see what you're saying but as i mentioned the acquiescence and consent that is independently dispositive of our cat claim so can i move to a slightly different issue


to help him decide the credible fear determination always looks to me like the court reporter has it's good sentences and everything but there i agree there was no question directly about other arrests


to identity but i don't think that there is an identity finding here that led to a denial of relief i think it's simply an adverse credibility factor additionally with regard to the birth certificate that's another


good morning everyone welcome to the th circuit we were delighted to see you here today we will take the cases in the order that they appear on the calendar and the st case is she way versus bar council for that case


witness is unknown as a general rule may i use this hearsay testimony absolutely your honor and what is my best case sanchez versus holder your honor at seven hundred and four of the


on where a guy was killed or who how many killed him and they don't even get a chance to cross examine how is that fair your own or is it fair simply because


that state law poses liability for the entire tax debt west sides entire tax debt up to the amount of money that mr carter received from one side through this transaction and so if that amount of money


and i was encouraged actually to hear from both petitioner and the office of special counsel it doesn't appear that there's a desire to create any circuit split by anyone in this room and we certainly agree with that that the federal circuit law is appropriate in these cases and should be adopted in full


c i believe he actually has filed that application this is exactly what he asked for in his motion to reopen he did not say anything before the agency about these continuing effect arguments this is entirely new that was raised for the st time in his reply


find against you you need these three pieces of evidence you've testified that you can obtain these three pieces of evidence i'm going to continue the case so that you can submit this evidence had a hearing later on and at that later hearing the argument exhausted


the main point that i want to highlight emphasize according says very specifically i'm sure he's not lying in the sense that he he does he's not making up the story he believes it to be true but the


objective evidence we have a medical record from a read mexico that reflects nothing except his fear that his grandfather was trying to poison and we have a trouble hearing you could you yes i'm sorry is this better there is the the objective evidence in


torture claim as well so if there is substantial evidence in this record to support that because there's if you take his story is true that along the way people said no don't worry we're not after you


sort of fairness concerns or whatnot we just don't think that you don't think that an i j already found that the evidence that she put on in the first hearing did amount to that your honor if i did say that you know whatever she proved it was that we are


case from the u s supreme court from two thousand eleven where they talk about a line of cases where they calibrate the cost benefit analysis of


department in addition to the news reports is presenting precisely this information by e mail to three employees of the organization at that time i said no reason to know that this was that that this evidence was going to be that that the subpoena would be


i think i just need to call the court's attention to where the record answers some of the questions that you asked in the pen dix that we gave the court on pages one


much in the discussion of past persecution we were just having fixating on whether or not there was a lasting injury seems to me fairly inconsistent with what is required to show past persecution the fact that there are whether or not there is a lasting


few couple of paragraphs which are inequitable tolly determination and then you come down you have the discussion of change country conditions or three paragraphs that have to do with that and the final paragraph is the final you know through sponte we're not going to reopen this case so it is your


your time is going down yes your honor let me just briefly when you say the hearing itself you mean the what you're saying was unfair about the hearing what wasn't developed about nobody ever asked why did the gang persecute you why did they come to


magic social group that is but nobody ever asked is there any connection between these two these two things and on stage i think i've already explained it your honor you know that was apparent from the record that he had been abandoned and i'd like to reserve the right time to frankly events if we have additional questions when you


questions to exactly find out well if i can speak to counsel's point about prejudice right because they're relying on this montoya's lopez decision which is which was a denial of a continuance to retain private counsel that this


for why it was not providing any of the information aside from the privacy claim by the union president i'd also i'd also point out just quickly addressing


said but it still it's that intent the the culpable conduct plus the intent that the board has long looked at as what is the definition of a crime involving more turpitude and there's


of the rules requires a representative miss but doesn't impose that time limit that you mentioned but the other rule which doesn't pose the time when it doesn't have an explicit representative miss requirement in so it's not clear from the limited record that we have here


section two i think it's important not to conflate two separate issues one issue of whether congress intended to provide a private right of action in the very separate question of whether congress in tided and so intended to abrogate


georgia supreme court's ruling was a misapplication of chapman b california is because the evidence that you were cited is evidence favorable for to the prosecution but there was evidence supporting acquittal on direct on these precise


gun and i would point out that he has brought up the fact that the state's back the state's expert firearms expert was subsequently fired in two thousand and nine seven years after this trial but mr almaine had his own


themselves from state control and not private actors they're called public corporations they are private actors the way they conduct themselves as a presumption they have the burden to prove that they're not and so there's actually beginning with it we began with the assumption that they are private actors


abandonment has to do with the fact that we don't respond to jet now we responded to jet before this court tried to make it explicit that we don't need to response a jets claim that we have to bring this pursuant to ninety three because they have not proven that they are a state actor for which that


demonstrated at trial that there's a one hundred percent error rate in his good loan bad loan analysis which actually dollars to the conclusion that a prime interest rate loan in two


recognize of course that we hold pro se litigants to a lesser standard of pleading in practice but did you raise this lisi title to title three argument in your blue brief or only in the grand brief i've been i've been arguing this case as soon


that he had been cleared so he was fine in this isn't documented number one tendentious thirty two page thirty seven line seventeen through eighty eight or excuse me thirty eight lines five so here we have an inmate


face the situations where they are not aware of the facts in this case the officers weren't aware of all the facts and you could say that trooper amos albeit unintentionally let me ask you


decision deals with membership in a social group like a family you're confident that that doesn't affect anything in that we should wait to see what department of justice does with l e a with that we can just


but it sounds a little bit like the supreme court's decision in wal mart vs duke your honor we're talking about individual discretionary decisions made at individual cases with individual facts and assignments very fact based


benefits at time of this death congress did use the phrase receiving benefits another part of the statute but did not use it here when they enacted neither to l they used this particular phrase ology determined to be all the time of his death so this is just that congress meant to


this court has already said it won't revisit won't second guess the construction no matter how bad that's the difference between arbitration and having access to the courts to


approach in that case but i agree that davis resolves a number of issues in this case it will were all resolved the statute of limitations issue that that the government has raised it will resolve the procedural default issue that the government has raised in and i think one of the best yet


about that though is because the vala scored address the conduct based approach but then the based on the record of that case that we would they are that that somehow obliges us to do it here well


question about the procedural issues associated with it leigh so st i'd just like to point out that the trial court abused its discretion by claiming to consider this case on the merits but not wholly an evidentiary


health expert says that the defendant suffered from attention deficit disorder that was not an opinion offered by a run pro the st mental health expert


and of course the court recognized would be cited would be discussed would st page and a half yes and there was nothing in would they thought that altered this general proposition if you were right there would have been no


allegation in the complaint that my client was with the plaintiff in this case for five hours the united states supreme court as we cited in our brief and recently in the escondido case in the k did that qualified excessive force cases are very fact specific and that


not say shall be held if it's said shall have its effect defects cured then they are cured and we don't have any reach back there is no preceeding in which we could be availing ourselves or be denied and


in this case pretty identical your honor we would say very much that this case is identical to by two minutes but i would respectfully question and underpinning of your decision which is is by two minutes no longer


apply if the pollution exclusion covers all of strikes in other words what did the employer get for paying this additional money if you're excluding exposure to harmful conditions in


g b i records reveal they were shot over sixty times and i'm sure your honor if there are other cases that are analogous to that case a bar this court like any other circuit would weigh certain facts and circumstances as


was not only did this happen in one nine hundred forty six what about family members of the witnesses or the grand jurors a part of those are still alive aren't they don't they have an interest in the reputation of their families and


i think that below she's done the exact same thing that the defendant caldwell did and basically said that i would have done something different if i had no that's not my question because that doesn't go to the objective standard objectively titchy do nothing objective the she did nothing i mean she


caught was convicted of badly battery causing bodily harm and there's a factual play basis to support it so when we use the modified categorical approach it looks like there's really no doubt your


opinion and the facts are what follows instead and i submit at that is the particular arresting officers opinion of what the offense is and i would suppose i would point to one other thing in the record which i think supports


are again i was our position would be it when you agree to facts and these are facts that were agreed to by the defendant as the basis for his plea that you necessarily admit the corresponding elements that go with those facts and so this case he wouldn't have necessarily admitted right


was bleeding right and so he agreed to those facts that i think it really is a matter of law satisfy both elements of the offense and he i mean this wasn't a stipulation or the prosecutor's offer of proof right this


by default goes into that share folder and has let me ask you this are you the are you are you challenging substantively the length of the sentence in this case yes yes your honor


honor's who are just as familiar with the record to to make that factual determination as the government stated their strongest evidence of mr collins knowledge as to distribution comes from his own testimony and that's a problem for the government because the


release their claims but claim that they could not make an informed decision because of communications that home depot had absolutely nothing to do with but when you look at what they were seeking and that's what hensley focuses on you can't just say


class counsel found out that obviously misleading and and coercive communications were going to the class members and they said listen they claim they didn't do those writing that's not the issue the issue is did


an additional forty eight hours before she was released maybe even more than forty eight hours before she was released so everyone in this scenario aside from this alex are apparently thought they were doing the right thing


all of that came up in about a thirty day period i got a different question you're you're over your time but at this a different question and come up and i'm trying to figure out how you think this was going to work when you tried to intervene in their state court


instruction the district court again and was defendants contend that they are innocent of all charges and not guilty could the prosecutor stand up and say look this you know look at this instruction it's about what they contend but it's not the law because he had a right


now turning to the drug distribution the answer there must also muto in your i guess your position is based on the factual proffer which is what we have that there was nothing beyond that because


to the to mr decker thought that these were commissions for drug sales for drug paraphernalia for guns there was no discussion there's no identification of a of a meeting of conversations of


anything like that which by the way i if you read the case law including say pointis hurtado there this court faced a similar issue was there enough evidence to support conspiracy and what the court did it


law under section fourteen of the constitution about obama in fact would work i begin was not out to get it clear to me that you had made that argument in your brave


filed in the circuit court of montgomery county alabama secretary spencer call your and dr david bronner were sued in their quote representative capacity form jumper one as allowed by the alabama contour as interpreted as being allowed by


and twenty five point three zero six this is a certification provision the defendants could if they didn't think she was seeing some or had a serious injury or a serious health problem they could have sent it to or they're required under law to send it within


it much later there are two subsections over the definition for a serious health condition one requires that you see the healthcare provider within seven days of the onset of the period of being capacity at stake i think we can incapacity in treatment prong


opportunity several opportunities actually to raise anything that needed to be raised and what is actually interesting at the very end of the plea colloquy before the district court judge on day two there was one final opportunity given


under those circumstances i think it makes sense that the fifth circuit would have not come out with a good in this robinson case that you've talked about indicating that yes there should be a clear objection to give the district court


be to light in a room and it's more of something that's a necessity for privacy whereas with soft window treatments you really dressing up the window after the hard window


and plantation shutters when i speak of them they are shutters for the inside of the house not to be confused with shutters that are on the outside of the house in today's market place shutters


the mission for habitat overall is to provide decent safe affordable housing across the globe and to advocate for policies for decent safe affordable housing across the


more so than giving money even though you know you do that and you do that for other reasons in other places this one really really drives me because i get to see the the end result so


furniture on your windows ok it is the most expensive window treatment you could install in your home unless you go very elaborate with a lot of drapery and a lot of fabrics but if you go to


out there that do clean them i did meet someone recently who had them for ten years and a service came in and cleaned all her silhouettes and they looked brand new honeycomb shades people know honeycomb shade says hunter douglas


hydrated typically someone of an elder age will not eat as easily as someone that is younger so it's important to say aware of the fact that you are in taking enough


thinking of your have you know this more skilled health need ok and that's provided that's like paper that's medical so that's taken care of by your medical insurance medicare typically not always but typically another fine nuance between the two is


knowledge base of all of the categories and services that a senior would possibly need assistance with and not an expert in any of those areas but having the knowledge base to know have an


a one out there so they show gives you that process it gives you that understanding of what they look for certain schools looking for different types of academics their friend types of athletics and it gives you an


around which is feb sixteenth they always talk about you know cleanliness in the home and and really sweeping out all the old so tell me how do you how do you begin to work with a


assess what it is that you need and what where what you need to keep and then deal with rearranging so that it functions better functions better so and do you have to carry insurance dina how does that work i mean if you coming into my house and you moving


out the federal form which is called the fafsa and for a number of institutions what's called the profile these institutions i talked about that have their own money and then they would go through the whole a process and hopefully get an award letter which contains enough money to make it possible to go


my name was circling that i was back in new jersey i got an opportunity to interview got the position in and now i'm here in jersey building building the jersey flight number really excited about this opportunity so now let's get into the jersey flight what do you look for what are the some of the people coming


today my guess is the perfect person to have here for m l k day she's a corporate vice president award winning marketeer acclaimed author empowerment speaker community advocate extraordinary phenomenal woman she's been featured


requirements like you have to complete all of your general education requirements before you could do one of these programs so just making sure that you're heading all the classes that you need to in order to graduate early or do a one of these special programs or


want to be able to ascertain a little bit more about your curriculum at the senior classes like about what your town is like your city is like we want to just hear a little bit more about that kind of contextual information that we might not know there's your community and


from the from the guys that are hovering around the around the twelve or just making the national tournaments so now a student athlete comes to rocker's university for wrestling what what could they expect the what's what's the year round


you know we're bringing in one of the best guys in the country one to national titles high school national titles from california and it was a lot of work to get them to come across the country but those are the guys we need to to win at this level in this conference and of course the jersey guys if they're


offices are doing where they are you know getting multiple officers from different departments sometimes specifically trained in how to mind these areas for you know cyber criminals and they


and nothing never came of it there's no way we can know but there is a way that you know we can determine what happens beyond that point you know so that i mean that's where that's where the punishment comes in that's where you know people have to serve


know if they have the ability to get that answer sooner with not having a binding contract like an early decision early action is a nonbinding where we let the students know if they've been admitted to the institution where early decision is


field our baseball field our salt ball field they're all in one area about a block and a half of our campus so in practice days we transporter players there by the same on game days so it's slightly off campus but it's outer space which


for your significant other for the full year that's a great idea and then i'm going to set it up so that you're going to pay me you know based on what the gifts are that you've selected a monthly i'm going to bill your monthly so the spread out through the whole


has that catchy tune so people people will pick that up you've got it's got to have that hook yeah so it has that hook so they'll grab that and you know that's that's the key of learning and playing other people's music is you understand what makes a hit


pieces and even the piece on the bottom there you see the wood yes and the crystal combination and the metal so you know i guess i was wrong blended into that piece of wood it's hard to see in the photo but that's like three different elements


place now academic wise what are some of the requirements that princeton looks for for students to come to school or why do you listen in order to be admitted to princeton is no secret you have to be a great student i mean yeah they have to have great grades you have to be a


negative that you have to realize being on a bus and being a sing your courage you know sometimes you get a little right yes but the trip was great yeah the trip was great we went to new orleans and we seen all the tours like the what would you call the


went in the up and down this so i found this fiber still job and i was a sales rep initially and just recently became the field manager so i still do a little bit of interior design but this job is really my primary this is your primary job right


service writer so it is our big big thing so tell me about the service and how does that work i'm a consumer you come in and you put the protection tell me where do you put the protection is it just on upholstery is it


get on the rug it's a bonus for you because that parchin of the rug will be less absorbent will be protected so what we do we do you know put tarps and plastic around when we treat and anything that gets over spray and gets wiped off and it doesn't go like in your and your wood


very common question actually to ask in pageants do you think hard cation is important i don't think i've ever really heard someone say no to that question because it is important and pageants actually help you to rise and that occasion role too so it ends up


your i miss usa for it to be it's not like a weekend you're packing a bag and you're leaving it is a huge ordeal you're packing like sixty outfits you're designing a gown you're meeting with your coaches to perfect those interview skills perfect you know you


internship you know for two or three months in new zealand or spain or ireland and that allows you to get like a half step into the working world you know eighteen nineteen yeah to get a feel for this is what it's like to work to cook for


gone she told her friend who was with her she said get me out of here don't let any guy touch me don't let any guy near me and she got herself out of there she didn't remember any of that but there's and i don't mean to scare people off of college but there's a lot of crazy stuff going on sure


it right so now we're going to get our bands that are full circle and we're going to put them around our ankles so it's going to feel a little different it's a new exercise to a lot of people


go through that but i didn't know that you have a master's in mathematics and degrees in business administration what were you supposed to be doing with that you know so i've always you know i got a degree in business administration and economics and


my name is all one time lover and i am from new york city i was born in brooklyn and raised in queens i've been dancing basically thirty years


talked i was like who's this like i'm new in this so you know later on that night i went to my grandmother's phone book and i said yvette grover ok and then in the morning i called


homelessness you met medical in general and veteran employment transition out of service and into gainful employment the general thinking is that because we've got this incredibly


i believe it was the ninety's when she bought it now you can get that same t v for three hundred dollars it's crazy so things change up and the other question is you have a question for me honey i think


the social aspect as well as extracurricular aspects many of our student athletes are involved in another activity beyond their ath participation on an athletics team so in the ivy league we


academically by taking a rigorous course load because that matters as well to be a four zero zero and have taken basket weaving your whole high school career is not going to gain admission into an ivy league school though


out what they're about so i would say summer whether it's playing in a club teams are going to institutional camps there has to be a way where you're getting access and you're being see now what's some of the requirements of princeton university


table also having it in your dining room i mean you could actually real that anywhere could be an island in a kitchen but it's so great i like the natural curves of it so if a person is standing behind it serving


easter verse powell who knew the severity of the condition who disregarded the pleas of help multiple pleas for help from the inmate and then the inmate who actually did indeed suffer direct


so what we're left with is is the prior failure to identify offense similar to failure to appear and your honors i think it's not because number one thirty two identify


action that is based on related to or in response to an exercise of a protected right and this court is bound to interpret this statute as it believes the texas supreme court


activity that cases it i would submit is an even stronger indication of where you might be able to link an attorney despite the fact that the tourney's conduct was within the station of being a lawyer to some type of criminal activity are


because you can get up and testify that the light was red and i can't disregard what you said because i didn't believe you or i disregard he said because i'm just not i'll listen to the evidence and that's the difference here i mean is which one


very respectful to the jurors medical concerns you can tell from the record that the judge had a discussion with the juror on that thursday evening when he asked to be dismissed not be dismissed for deliberations and for the day because of his headache the jury


what these people did based on these shop titles that sort of thing but so going back to this improper drawing or issue it's it's they weren't did not collection p m r c was not denying that there were out there they fact produce documents


court to look at is what is the purpose of safety valve because i think what he was saying was this really goes to punishment and in forty forty six u s c seventy five of three it says the punishment for these offices are found in twenty one


you there was some secrets there was but that it wasn't really developed because there is some suggestion that there was consistent relation of what happened that they were approached by unknown people that said hey here's an offer to get on the boat there was other


sixteenth april sixteenth


incentives and pay raises a year and a year and a half later so there's no evidence of day provided that controverts any of the non retired to reasons that the district gave on their free speech claim


suicide risk and that he knew it despite that he gave the deceased a blanket and a towel and unlike this case he actually implemented frequent checks on her which in this case they did not do that and the court found he acted with deliberate indifference to the statistics deceased known


clio information this point was raised very briefly in at least and for purposes of appeal i believe in the state and mr fulton statement of the case in which he requested that this court


coverage for that as well you would submit that we are entitled to coverage for the two thousand and fourteen claims however will acknowledge that the tax no texas court has decided this issue by it and many other courts


understand that the result seems harsh but it's consistent with the policy language the the burkes court which we cited in our brief is the fourteenth district court of appeals case


off label use is it no you're


argument also that well you didn't probably pretty creates a catch twenty two for the planet now how are we supposed to plead and put more meat on the bones without having access to the device which medtronic took after the surgery we can't test it we can't analyze it we can't


when we all have computers and any little part of the computer fails it goes down they could be a software issue it could be all kinds of glitches so how can they when he sites want to lebanon one sixty five and this the f d a approved statements there


for and yet the trial judge is texas law to throw out his claims against the operator which would not have happened if i had


these that the doctors have maybe eight minutes to review every single file and that they're relying extensively on disability examiners who we have no idea what their training is in these cases you know that some of the payment was and how it catered to the doctor when


fact that the judge made a more restrictive r f c is not what's important it's the primary factor is a good is because mr barrett was over fifty if he was limited to sedentary unskilled work the rules


granting of the motion for summary judgment on this issue it seems that if they wanted to allow that defense to be permitted in this context especially given the string demand compared to the eighteen thousand hour


part of the damages that plaintiff allegedly suffers that comprise the allegedly excessive demand and so to assess the quality and the good faith of the priest who demand that is


the premier example of such a protection and yet the application that the court provides in its motion in lemony ruling completely flips that statute on its head and ensures as


appellant counsel argued in closing was too high wrong he said quote let's get real we ask for more than we're entitle to so that we can get what we really think we're entitled to and something below that


case and in that case there was even a stronger showing against a litigant having access to information in that case a patent attorney had sued several companies that help patents and sought him for that information in discovery it was


opposition as a client and i'm assuming that your parent was your counsel and you were the right you were being represented by i believe that i would have the right to attend one and i actually did attend one of the jewelers deposition where there was no order


the runnion of running apply the private search doctrine to the digital context and they said there are two questions first that the government learned something from the search that it couldn't have learned from the


the department of education and there frankly there are no cases on point ok where there's a three month delay there's cases in new york in georgia that are eight months in a year they said those are jury issues and there's plenty of cases from this court which which both i cited


you don't have a jury full of lawyers and so this notion that something could be legally consistent to say well you intended to do it man you plan to do or you're going to do it and maybe you just kind of messed up and it while legally you can say that


or he wouldn't have raised these complaints about that's the that's the evidence that he knew that's that's something that's right and there's more so in addition to that we know that justice perks or at least mr anderson


they've been charged on the law and they know the law and we shouldn't presume because there are a few instances where possibly some questioning went a little too far that the jury's not reading those instructions and i think that's really important i think it's hard to ignore that in the walls


they said that the five year statute of limitations began to run in two thousand and eight but the statute of limitations can't run unless there's a cause of action so essentially they're saying that


although there is dicta there and the reason i believe that that shouldn't be applied as a holding is because for two very important reasons one if you bring the proceeds into


uses to review this case


plain meaning of service establishment is broad enough to in compas apply the banks and second the context requires that those words be given their natural broad construction as to the first reason plasma banks like c s l's are clearly establishment


contemplating that all services stablish months are covered it's an important for plasma donation center so can you can you help us with the same like kind analysis district court performed i'm sorry can you repeat that question the district


safety issue to third parties which which is the direct threat or the safety defense under title three it's a reasonable medical judgment it wasn't that you know that somebody just said oh you've got a dog we don't we're not going to take the dog they let service


right increase that it was forty nine not forty three so i don't see how you can go back and that's actually the point that i was getting going to get to is e t i has not stipulated that it actually received forty nine million dollars of the


custody in the bank published don't us of the arrest in the galveston daily news an auction was later held and importantly the appellant's in this case were given notice of that arrest and the notice required them to come forward and i see i'm almost


that's right and so that's terri would sweep away all sorts of election laws that is not a theory just about texas photo voter id law but if i can get the notion that you're going to fight you responded to one


also guided the court there were a at least twelve findings twelve rulings by the on panel finding that specific subsidiary factual instances drawn by


discriminatory feature of s b fourteen we don't need additional evidence to prove that if you look at the text of basically what you're saying is you mounted every objection to s b five and your bottom line is there can be no voter id law


slammed the door and he couldn't see i'm there for a second then he wouldn't be allowed to shoot him had he had a vision a visual of what his hands were doing and had the individual if he was compliant it would change the whole dynamic of what happened at that and


retroactive denial of the third amended complaint after substantial discovery experts say expert reports which we believe is to be an abuse of discretion to that end i would just draw the court's


was responsible and if something bad had happened at the grandmother's house those those those social workers would have been blamed well your honor i'm not saying that they should have gone to the social


did not allege frankly not many i mean the the fact that the district court's order refers to are things like the records that were discovered in


much what what what policy is served by requiring all of this detail are you arguing that you can't really evaluate the diligence of the company in pursuing the possibility


o i also wanted to mention that the port of case talked about discrete acts and she doesn't really have any timely adverse action for retaliation in this case


exam there's no question that this is a forensic exam at least in part but but the parents have a right to make decisions for their for their children in this case is the poster child


the child needs immediate medical attention or complaining of some sort of some sort of problem you know they for instance they come across musicals if a child comes in and complains that their back hurts or other parts of their body hurt of course they can examine those children and see and render


to present their case the trial court tons of depositions a lot of paper discovery a lot was done down there just purgason review the whole record and said they didn't do it they didn't sustain their burden so what do we see in the lower


to be a master instructor any notion that the exxon didn't rely upon mr back to lead to put forth these warnings is not in the record that's why the


the and it's and when it does come in it's really a step one consideration typically that but the jury if anything tends to support what happened here in that case or in selecting


it is pretty well the fine in the first a minute complaint that was not an issue that the district court latched onto in dismissing that first woman complying with the district courts that is as for market power well in you know i i referred


nineteen out of twenty brokers only serve monster or no broker out of the twenty big one serves anybody except monster rockstar and red bull you don't live jenny of that right that's true we do not allege that you don't even allege


my speculation now but that's the problem with with saying that there are these other un represented positions out there i don't know what the positions are but i do know what they were advertised right there were some that were advertisers no evidence whether they were


understand your point because as i understand that's when amazon didn't it wanted to grow and growing growing growing didn't care so much about the profit or i believe what is different between this and that because this is a company that that is selling


because it was never investigated by time warner at the time but don't forget also that she had now been there for a at least a year and so she would have had seniority over the new people in that class and she may have been able to get an earlier shift maybe not a morning shift


called him names he said i'm excuse me sir i'm hand i'm disabled and he did nothing he actually did nothing did never touch the officer who was injured you know none of this happened the officers presented a completely different account


the fact that the surgery was effective and that there was no workplace limitations or functional restrictions imposed on him other than wearing comfortable shoes and not walking barefoot indicates that that's there just that later evidence even if the


two issues i would have no you may i say still not understanding what you're hoping to him and well we're asking the court stay you have to file something you have to a man to file an amended something so what is the abandoned something


no i think that can be answered yes or no yes she did not it is part of your concern is that it was after the fact parties are going back and trying to say would her intention was rather than what the judgment says the judgment


the bankruptcy court one of which was affirmed on appeal the cases cited by the bankruptcy law firm deal with things like intentional withholding of taxes intentional zone violations things that are intentional conduct by the trustee as


additional admonition so he had received four separate admonitions of the prosecutor in front of the


occasions so that's why i'm saying it's not just an arrest it's not just the search but searches were accomplished present a warrant and there were other people's homes we brief this in the district court we didn't brief it here because he didn't appeal it here it was


that you either need to stop using them or you need to apply for a special approval so to start with that and the f d a had very clear objectives they wanted to achieve by allowing that three year period so a claim that well those were


more than a general interest or a general right of possession rather contemplates ownership now with that which we had a dispute trying forgotten and what your position is here but i'm trying to clarify that based


purchased some you know fifteen million dollar property to you know skate by they owned this for a long long time in various forms they made the payments on it it was always their home and for we don't know the


is that we have alleged facts that the that the methodology for the sensitivity analysis is wrong those those facts have to be taken as true there are no facts in the record interestingly that


reasonable there's nothing on that it's almost like it's almost like the sensitivity analysis is it almost admitted as as being indefensible which is which is which i think is remarkable and that's one of the things incident you know that takes us out of the regal


is they sort of say that we've hit it in the ether it's literally in the place that everyone would go first i have a bookmark in my phone we do a lot of life sciences work if i hear about a clinical trial that's where i go


the results we allege that they had a paper that over with a sensitivity analysis so that they could get to cuba to say the thrust of our case is that it's not that they thought q but you would fail or they they they they they knew it would fail they certainly they wanted it


defendant m x was a case also with a growing market thirty percent over five years in a max and in that case the plate of the government came forward and said we bet our burden of proving injury to competition


the clock for the plaintiffs are asking this court to do what no court has ever done which is reject the suggestion of immunity filed by the department of justice and department of state asserting that a foreign official acting in his official


have for instance the sales person we don't know what contact what we don't have any special products right collect it's a general verdict we have people on the on the ground who were up for instance testimony about jose garcia and hillary


all of this so why doesn't you know you but you had a jury trial why doesn't that stand because the evidence did not meet the standard under california law set forth in greenwood and in a number of cases afterwards that side of the case and the preceding


that safe you have to establish reasonable certainty of these prospective damages and there was no evidence judge for it correctly found there was no evidence of reasonable certainty that any cars were going to come back much less two million


manufacturing problems with these kinds of artifacts so there's a you know a realistic problem sometimes people are liable and you don't bring them in because it isn't as you going after somebody else


this hearing was the issue that the district judge had a trial scheduled i believe on october eighteenth but that motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant on october seventeenth the day before and he initially his ruling looked


specific things such as due process has been met there was a skelly hearing there was sufficient process that so that would be my first answer one or the second if they did not say that and it was completely silent then i would say by the reading the report


people it went to your taking it from the trustee and giving it back to greenlee then right now we're taking it from the people who went to giving it back to the trustee to distribute as property of the estate oh you're taking it from him as a as a recipient of it to give to these


fact and not be disposed of and a summary judgment for there is limited information do we need you we have evidence that mr allen was in fact the decision maker when it came to your client's terminations he was a participant in their bed because he made a


law in taiwan not allowing collection so can you show me where you made that argument we didn't raise that argument below but then again the standard but what you're looking at here is what the lower court looked up but


moments when the money goes across the sea we can seize it and as the evidence is in the record is if the title of above the machine transfers in hong kong when it hits the dock here we can't seize that machine because


distress caused by an alleged misconduct when if you take a look at earlier litigation with this misconduct and that could have been discovered but under collateral stoppel principles we're moving on the has to be finality to litigation now you're


architect who was really directing the building of the school had told the engineer that he didn't need to continue his work he was going to draft a report but he ended up not doing it and what concerns me is that the


think that that probably answers the question so the three quick points that i'd like to get you first of all the one that that ms hong ended with on in terms of departures the government made this exact argument and booker and booker said no that's not good enough especially what booker


layman's terms i would say free of heart disease so it's going to prevent heart disease for you jackson i don't know if i had a heart disease i never been diagnosed with heart disease so i don't know how to really answer that so i guess i'm just trying to figure out


and when these statements such as or in the tape case come to light then and come to the fore unlike in the stearns case from the ninth circuit there is no preemption at at work in the absent


use of a software brain tasked with tailoring information and providing it to the user provides no additional limitation claim imitation no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea it is restricted to the use of the


basis however in their pleadings and their contentions they always made it sound like we work they allege in their efficient attention the definition of their provider if that it was asked and or some other people and with


patent and that my understanding of the way the courts have construed you know making use or selling is you actually have to you know start developing in a manufacturing and i don't just think thinking of something in your mind or going to talk if you go talk to an investors


coming up with a data tabulation system that solved a computer problem this solve the incompatible carrier that working problem fix the problem that


on no they're not the same thing but i think they do inform each other to some extent that what's also undisputed in this case which is very unusual is that those in the field believed that the


think primarily the argument was what we did we weren't just using a computer and a server in the network but we try we were able to translate these different languages into one and that to me that's


quote the result focused functional character of claim lang which has been a frequent feature of claims held in eligible under section one i want especially in the area of using generic computer network


plurality of outgoing telephone numbers based on a least the eric code of the call target so in context replacement telephone number modifies the caller identification data it doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have a first original telephone number and that's where


it simply translated well if the u r l part of the hyperlink remains identical then you're going to be directed to the same original page which in that case would be an un translated page


are very clear that you can pick languages for example so when you click on the dropdown menu it comes down it shows you french spanish german italian japanese and then you pick the language you want but still called one click in this patent


real part of your argument here it's that the reason it has to be starting the filtering mechanism and stopping the filtering mechanism is because it also defines filtering mechanism which in your pattern could be any number of mechanisms


skill in the art with this would now that there is a range of the solvent that you have to use where you're going to be have enough for cracked and to get myself formation but not too high that you start to get a grip that are large types


to be practiced but even putting that aside if it's a step it's still a step that has to be performed by a process and system so the exact same indefinite arguments that we are talking about would still apply and would still invalidate the claim


to put the information in the selection box of good hand is a kind of assistance dramatic assistance that is not present in in the randi solution and the claims rule it out because it says


uniformity that they're talking about with spreading over any broad angular range what this is what this is showing that it's at the real purpose of park and what it terms of the uniformity though i mean parking does talk about uniformity but the claims don't do that


that strongly deviates light and it in fact when you look at the distribution you can tell that it's reversing it's changing the peat distribution that you would otherwise have and spreading that out to make sure that it's


discussions with them and that's why i went back and forth and back and forth and then they decided to take two claims to this report one for the argument that you can narrow and in ways that really don't relate


it's now says the first connecting struck column is configured so not only are they adding these limitations to narrow it they're even changing what the limitations talking about they're no longer talking about the geometric configuration of the struck they're not


the mature part that when cleaved off all right so where in the record did you present expert testimony that said that you have to understand that that once there was this reference to show being a possibility that therefore you have


that's just completely distinct from that was my little satchel containing the seven books i checked out that morning not container capsule i think it is well your honor first of all the


this claim were interpreted as being a specific concrete improvement to or i should say change in how computers record and retrieve data because that's kind


evidence which i believe we presented both arguments the argument that if this were if this was not considered to be updating it was none the less obvious i believe the part that he quoted was the


group review but then we have a pattern of conduct here we used to say on the desert this is a go pro i mean and i'll spot say another thing here there's a chilling effect


tariff needs to be added edited to reflect that intention but the way it stands right now we are left with a subjective standard i think when you look at the overall definition of the


reasonable to take a definition from earlier on of the with less processing and use it in a product with more processing later on in the h g s chapter forty four good let me ask you turning to the last point that ms owens was making


that they wish to not launch at risk and incur potentially ruinous damages and they wish to flush out whatever patents there are this statutory regime has been deliberately architected to


might not necessarily remember they're not free to bring that that declaratory judgment action until and unless and until they give the eight a notice that's what all nine a success neither side can can bring an action declaratory judgment action


really to clean up what the patent office probably should have handled in the ninety two interference since the same subject matter and the same parties were involved so priority was never an issue and with that priority never being an issue


on the way up to full data and corruption and the concern is if you have objective in disha that full data encryption is commercially successful or praiseworthy that doesn't


well if there's a dispute customs has a mechanism to place things in suspense in fact the payment that was made as part of the ten three forty three case was placed in suspense until the final resolution about how the interest is going to run because it doesn't make


abstract idea as tracking freight and these claims don't cover all ways of tracking freight they don't cover obtaining the information directly from the driver they don't cover obtaining the information from a device that's pre installed in


please court there are two main points i would like to make this morning and respect respectfully request of thirty seconds to late enough in the court the first is that the primary error requiring a reversal of the district fourth is its insertion


fifteen of the decision and the rest of the decision was simply going through personal web nine arguments some of which related to adding step back to what it will and for some reason just addressing all of those arguments


like this one that would include frank her which actually had the exact penetration and hence are including the amounts that would be santas which is very including ink and when you say the amounts you're here you're


reference the nine three four that you have talked about as well that reference told you don't first of all that was a true combination not at three and it said don't use oleic


unbelievable there are pictures with welts from trial and all of this so that is why would somebody be looking there when it doesn't have the three it has the five and that's the very aren't that's causing the severe irritation that you are trying to get away


perfect circle it has to go round the circumference of the cable in this instance but a square is not circular would you agree with that i'm not saying that's a perfect square and i'm not saying it has to be a perfect circle i'm not trying to be


walls that actually occurred we said it did the other side said it didn't report say it well what the district court said is that is essentially nothing the district court started out in her opinion in


in exactly the same position i'm at that's a yes or no question i really am interested in whether your answer is yes or no she got no notice of the set aside requirement i think if she had gotten no notice


exactly for prevailing defendants and prevailing plaintiffs what the congress meant so again i don't think you need to decide that issue because she did decide the report did decide under the path now that the claim that the position


well with regard only to the infringement issue under the patent that claim and this is at page five of the joint appendix she's asking whether it's frivolous we're groundless that's not the same inquiry that she is conducting with regard to the rest of the issues ok and that's because


there's also another obviousness ground that was a latch it's an obvious and it was ground free where the the app believe brought in a third reference called motor yama but moti arm was brought in for a very small limited specific purpose of addressing


describes a particular feature a characteristic of the the applicant's services but that doesn't describe does it need this was not done it's


discuss increasing mechanical strength yes l g and the board in this case i believe applied a very superficial not technical approach to that issue we all know they're talking about two different kinds of mechanical strength


these are mere preparations for commercial sales they're confidential which under meg has not a talisman but is indicative of it not being commercial offer for sale but more to the point of the


refuse refusing to give it you requested we did your honor and i would further submit that a fair reading of the case law in california let alone in other states which are cited in the brief illinois florida and some


right as correct or so can you talk a little minute about how rollovers in the ordinary experience of the average driver certainly i would be happy to hear on it and to give it a little bit of context in the other


consumer would say you know i might expect some damage and some dents in my vehicle but i certainly don't expect that and maybe i'm wrong maybe they look at that and go hey all bets are off but i think the consumer an ordinary consumer does have


talked about how there was no she had the registration where she was parking in the she was parking in the parking lot of the hotel for seven years and they didn't give her notice so the so they just towed the car immediately in the court


it's construed against them so in this case what makes this case specific is that we did not control the whole project is not like the arroyo case and i know there are cases recently cited was submitted that's an entirely different case that's a case where you have a vineyard there's


based on the allegations against archer i would specifically direct the court to page nine of the archer western brief and page ten of the national union brief which are filled with the allegations of the defective work


at fault well i'm just saying that for the purposes of determining what work was damaged was it our work with g s work this case is different from a typical case where the general contractor because we


think we we we have to concede that the tournaments themselves as the tournament in k c was are public accommodations that is the turn him in as a public accommodation the question is


we would also characterize those as nonviolent might want to carve out some subset of those that it would classify as violent and that's that's something that we wouldn't necessarily have a view on that at this point that's something that could be hashed out and the remedial order we would


this one the plans role is really just to do what he can to make sure that there's an orderly process pursuant to this one pension benefit is somehow divided up in a way that makes sense because obviously you're not supposed to end up in a result


about undue hardship i didn't hear anything about it today but you know and you hardship is completely irrelevant because you only look at an undue hardship in the context of a specific proposed reasonable accommodation and there wasn't any here


person for unlawful search and seizure and the right not to use excessive force against him i go to paragraph nineteen you say a plaintiff was not offering resistance i go to paragraph twenty


force in this case was based only on the plane approaching down not on walking into an open garage not in refusing to show his hands and naaman turning around and reaching into his pockets and so that's why it's important as to what was in that deposition mr henderson


i would request would be a hearing it would be a hearing into equitable tolling and looking at that issue the problem here is so many years have passed that when we're looking at equity and equity fairness when we're looking at


which there is every indication they would appeal from the bankruptcy court then mr who use it would still have to appeal the issues that he didn't get that he didn't get a chance to try at the bankruptcy court so we'd still be have another trip back up the appellate


signifier indicates that this is a class three device which is subject to regulation by the f d a our position is that that the very fact that that representation is there that it says that this is an f d a covered product and the fact that medicare


materially false and there is no science or on behalf of a manufacturer who submits a claim for these all noninvasive device opposing pats wired to the external power supply i'm reading the definition but that's the device that we're talking about


he says he says something to the effect of you know it wasn't i wasn't there i don't know for sure but my impression is he didn't see that then they say what was he looking at in the mouth then and dr sheridan says well there's


of certainty that is required before a medical exam or can label the cause of death as homicide said that for him it's about ninety percent but the standard for


not settled so i don't see how the insurance company can say by no reasonable fight no conceivable theory could there be any act which could be potentially covered under the policy and that really can only be determined upon


strictly enforce it under the circumstances in this court elected not to follow all states lead but to strictly enforce blueridge and i think appropriately noting that the court's


accommodations of any of that covered entities and without even thinking about those five or six i forget how many specific examples that are in the statute why isn't


controls alleged in the complaint are personal devices there is no requirement in the regulation that a personal device be individually prescribe you know how is that you know a part of the problem here is trying to


on their face the reason i don't see this as difficult in terms of the establishment clause or the constitutional framework is because she was functioning according to the word


rigid unable to minister to non christians that's a form of stereotyping her as an intolerant christian minister even john that's exactly what there is direct evidence but the difference


good morning your honour's may please the court chime mandelbaum on behalf of the appellate he's in this matter a number of courts have held across the country starting i believe with a circuit that playing heads i win tails you lose is the worst possible reason