agreement that that party signed and i would submit to your honor that's exactly the situation here even if he says he saw it in correct your honor that every case didn't involve that i mean you can sign


and then that goes to the clearing firm the clearing firm assigns an account number and let's see introducing firm no that we've opened the account number we've opened the account on behalf of your customer and we are sending out to your customer all of the other required


that that i don't quite see the russian now for doing that i mean i understand the two step thing but i don't see the rationale for asking him to sign and say something which isn't in your other i can't explain that right now i can tell you


in the proper taxable year like i did in all of the other mid intermediary cases where the that the commissioner didn't do what the commissioner is doing here and that is alleged that the recur to zeeshan truncated the taxable year in none of the other


previously found and so they did the reporting the way that they did as part of disguising what the transaction was but yes because in substance they the transaction occurred on july second


consequences for july second again your honor you're quite right that that that the foundational question it's actually where i think the analysis has to start is a question of what is the proper taxable year the court said since i don't see why that so


a as lawyers initiative that's not the real world your honor and one reason we don't live in that well no i respectfully think the court does in the sense that there was recognition earlier today and certainly recognition throughout the case law of commercial


bring to the united states was to conduct comparative testings of their product with a reference product and there is no allegation in the complaint that they did that at all that's the context in which one has to


you i'm sorry that the question is is there some relevant distinction including that possible one which if that isn't a distinction is there anything different about these two cases so the only difference is one there's a defamation claim in


law reads as follows if the chief of curriculum assessment and struction fails to maintain any certifications or qualifications required for this position i e qualifications are required by the department


contract terms to the ones favorable to you but we have to we have to construe the language as a whole understood but i construed when i construe that language as the whole or affect any adjustments flows from


search rather than as a search incident to arrest but i would submit that that's not how the government tried to characterize the search or argue that it was legitimate when it came before this court on appeal and when it came up on appeal the government sought to


or a declaration that's one thing but if it's kept for a purpose predating any actual institution of litigation then it he seemed to put that off on the side of non testimonial


rare employment case where the undisputed facts warrant a storm or a judgment thank you your honor


someone doesn't mean that mr scrafton and acted for the specific purpose of financial gain and that's what's required for under the aiding and abetting theory but what makes it worse in this case is the government never even asked for an eating and betting


trouble and it was after if i understand it it was after this case was decided by the district court the supreme court decided the case involving the gas tank taking apart the gas tank correct


issues and that decision was requiring us to discover a wealth of information we did not believe would be in the interest of i'm having hypothetically speaking people who smuggle drugs to understand exactly how the dogs are trained so they can counteract the fact this is the dogs


factual support to base that inference upon and therefore this court decided that that was a factor yet a minimal importance because it was unsupported by anything faster so i'm saying if you factor in high crime area if you


could make the determination that due to the fact there's only a month and a half left in mr cillizza sentence that it would be prudent to go forward with the case law that we have today and so i understand you i think that the district court could make that determination


the defendant in those cases relied on and again the seven circuits that taken in from outside to the inside is enough and your honor just that you want to bring up to the court's attention about a week or so after the government filed its


case is in many ways not remarkable the issues were raised below they were briefed below the record before your honor it is thick and wide and deep and i believe even a cursory review of the main orders


lost she contested the one million two hundred seven thousand the only reference to the one million two hundred seven was in a equivocal estimation of what potential restitution would be she always reserve the right to challenge that


longer subject to forfeit forfeiture that had been forfeited and there existed a lien pursuit that order in favor of washington mutual and at that point the united states became a mere property owners with fee interest subjects


you can reduce it to twenty months i don't know of any alternative i know many judge has that authority i'm not aware of any specific rule that there are statute that allows it or alternatively prohibits


the court again the ruling was rather brief but did say that notwithstanding the standing issue that the court credited officer believes testimony and found that he had reasonable suspicion to do what he did that that's a


stand of all saw the police cruiser coming down the street but we accept the inference that the district court room which was that mr stand of all did see the police cruiser and that's why he turned into the


the area of the intersection mcfadden boulevard and it was also a very early hours three forty am an hour a very few legitimate activities in that neighborhood under the took how do the circumstances test this court must


a limited pat down search secure his safety during the remainder of the encounter and just while the encounter terminates and for that use a computer in the r's the pat down search


breakdown these are the kinds of things that mr backman said about his client i might as well go ahead and conclude my representation because i know what twenty to fifty five is coming down the pike he said things like the man is abusive i'm sorry but mr


about four years ago this court determined that an officer police officer cannot even testify as to the silence or lack of physical and emotional reaction of the


is my point the supreme court has gone there they've done their best forty years ago we got miranda and we got a grip and we've got doyle and you certainly can't be arguing that there's a case right on point that the right i'm sorry go ahead


assigned to the execution of am lats because in israel the police are tasked with the execution of these requests and that person has limited resources and we have to work within the limited resources that we have and their method of


district court is not just a rubber stamp it then makes a determination that there is a proper basis on which to suspend the statute of limitations and congress has made a determination that all of these concerns about


previously imposed that order from the magistrate fail to reference the previously imposed criminal conviction he was supposed to serve careful you've got a really


this particular case we never touched it as well because why it doesn't make any sense she could have been undocumented at the time they were married years ago we're not sure and more importantly according to mr grant's theory of he was coming


and in fact based upon comments that the district court has made as recently as a few weeks ago in motion for bail pending appeal it's i don't think we could say that there's any reasonable profit probability that the


that's something that should be gotten into the district court but i think record seems to be completely silent as to that issue and i believe that it's that it's both of ours actually if i had known one way or the other and it was beneficial to my client i should have put it


hagar told her these things therefore we're going to convict her and you're saying but had the public authority instruction been given a public authority instruction would have said that if she really


given that the government cannot anticipate fully what a defendant will say or what evidence a defendant may present and tell the defendant's case that that is inherently the nature of a


tells the person to whom he is reporting that he has committed a crime and is required to do that if he doesn't come in and nobody knows he's committed a crime unless they catch him otherwise would be does come in uncommon compliance with the requirement he's very active appearing so yes i have committed a


your honour's hypothetical if we go back in there and the district court announces a sentence that's worse than the one we have there's going to be there's going to have to be a reasonable


agreed that excerpt thirty six point five should not be given but then you changed your mind and made in a different objection way why


left but that's why we have nights i guess but at any rate would you turn to six point five and tell me where in the last paragraph the language indicates that there's a shift of burden of proof my


that there was no trial before your honor it was it was all done on a the government's motion to preclude the experts altogether so there is no real prior record to reach to any jury or exactly or engaging


there's problems was i don't but just trying to read a consistent way it is not overruled by other authority and this is the best i've come up but i don't think i created these problems i'm just trying to interpret


back to the united states in july of one thousand nine hundred six after she did that there were then questions about whether they were going to pay her or not subsequently raised and while they paid they started paying slowly they didn't have


cert well that that is the issue that there was that is it easy to get there oh i think so i think currently it is a lot of circuit it might be a newly articulated rule that might be a controversial rule but but it is a lot of circuit currently and


dr and i don't believe that it's required of the government in this case but i do believe that it was sufficient because the staff itself well i won't rehash that argument you


visited the property on a number of occasions three or four times according to the records the agency reviewed the work plan in carson harbor proposed to implement the site made some comments on the work plan they were revisions to the work plan and the work plan ultimately was


with you know is this really a copyright case not a trademark case and if so are you allowed to use trademark law rather than copyright law


judge jones we also have definitive proof that mccrae didn't have any assets whatsoever to rely on so that the ruling really made those findings but those findings were refuted in the evidence that was a percentage to judge jones


based on on on something but moreover your honor the records apparently if they were produced which are i'm from the representation the interned they were produced after the informant had already testify on the fourth day of trial


is what's important here imagine a juror vallely walked into the courtroom i mean we don't know what happened she walks into the courthouse and she heard some jurors talking it's just you know they're going to be jurors so we're not injure deliberations and she heard the make comments and she didn't mention it


have that right to do that it has not been now i mean they they requested never venture a hearing when i got back to the district court in the fall and that was denied the judge wouldn't take articles as such and understand that i


would not apply if at the time there was a federal court made this decision and they decided the issue and that's what we're feeling today only the federal claims the state court


by the judge in even


that the merits of the disability decision the only thing we can ask for on a constitutional claim such as this is that the district court remand the decision to o w c p to rule out


suggesting is just as in the cases that held that it implies that somebody running for congress could not be compelled to pay a filing fee if that was if they were indigent but you


and still be fals and that is that in this case to her made it is the mother was being investigated for a travel card fraud in this part of the investigation they got a statement from her that


mean they have to approve sponsors based on you know a good evaluation it's it's quick and if it's a parent usually moves quite quickly but yes the government does alternately sign off on the sponsor that's a really important safety measure for the


refuse all abortions that's invalid go back to the drawing board but the discord didn't do that discordant issued a the opposite policy the district court made the policy here and now that's where we're stuck in the policy is there can be no involvement of our our so we need some guidance


place where that decision could be made in better circumstances and it moved very quickly in the case of ms mo it was about a week so it was a very fast process in the case of ms rowe i think it was going to be a couple weeks until they determine she was over eighteen all


want to just mention the crisis president pregnancy center issue briefly previous asked for an order barring access to crisis pregnancy centers and the district court rejected that and we don't view that as on appeal and


hard to imagine scenarios in which the government and i think it's that authority internists timing is it also true that takes some time i think there are there's three types of voluntary departure and two of them take very little time the first is before proceedings have been formally started


suit the district court so this is a facial challenge i think that's precisely the problem your honor is that disputes are routed through out the federal government in concrete bargaining context about you know when agency


much more aggressive in cross examining him and bringing information out and then you may not just be that one thing but they get to say there's a cumulative effect here of an bearer's and you combine that with the fact


implicate the goal of the guidelines is to have a determinative sentence everyone knows how many months a person is going to be in less good time and a sentence that is life minus whatever is not a determinative


period of supervised release might be in this case precise is he as your argument suggest and then to take away from that the period that that she's assigned for incarceration


left with the discretion to determine how long a period of supervised release thinks the defendant should serve after he gets out of prison and i understand your honour's question that if the court were to st take the forty eight month period


purposes as as my friend had this morning was to create an incentive for the developments of this these drugs and our position does just that the fact that multiple companies can be developing something and continue to have an interest a statutory incentive to continue to


that let me ask you about cutting out the core area i know analogies are never good but i see that like the spokes of a bike wheel and the hub that is the core


when they were initially starting pretty unions you see you know creating these new website to put forth a history of this was started by several employees of construction railway in buffalo new york for the justice federal printing it was started by employees of the firm justice and so it seems that when


fourteen can't be a meaningless backstop this was a highly unusual case not one involving your risks mirroring six of spillover prejudice but this was build over prejudice we had a juror who acknowledged


and i want to emphasize that just that dr gravity himself limited his own testimony and he admitted that was limited because of what he called the unfortunate failure to


medical information and i think that he sees that that's how he justified in his mind going ahead and testifying under these you know unfortunate circumstances that a question relevant to that there was some discussion in the lower court about the


staffing levels staffing levels drive costs very heavily in the coastguards formulation this is been referred to in the papers as the peak staffing because current post and issues


south are almost actually in this thing with a ball in hamilton warns on relying on the kinds of subjective standards that were used here in the basement like eighteen or nineteen pages in their briefs on that so that i picked up your brief to see what the answer was


pending judicial proceedings which means before a judicial proceeding and the immigration act provides a general grant of authority to detain and again i don't think that actually by theory but setting that aside and it's a general


which lays out the e p a will be in creating this planet after that initial submission that i assume is and the state fails to submit something and i agree if the state submit something later than


there was a determination of the legality of the detention it was just that the detention fall from a different source of authority which is the authority to detain pending prosecution and if that's let's just assume that that's the way when off work through that issue


available here our client has been held for over six months he hasn't been charged with a crime by the united states or by anyone else and there is a remedy about will in fact as the government says on page six of its reply brief there is a remedy that would fully


administrative and legislative mineral with drawls to the designation of the traditional cultural district to the opinion of the advisory council here that made clear that it or oil and gas development on this lease would inflict such a severe blow to the blackfeet tribes cultural


any individual compliance with it that's armstrong supposes no memorandum because it's not part of the record that i think we're at the same hypothetical i think we're at the same place that you would be saying that


continues your honor is correct that the original determination challenge was it was made in late two thousand and seventeen and since that time the agency has made a series of changes to


earlier what is the legal status of an indicator determination that's associated with the code and i frankly don't know the answer to that but let me ask you one more


exceed medicaid payments nothing in the tax permits the secretary to change the formula by adding another category of payment that must being that it out that complete lack of reference to third party


congress knows that it could have said receive medicaid benefits and the difference between patients that are medicaid eligible with don't receive medicaid benefits are specifically patients with third party coverage because it's unlawful for a hospital to bill


relationship with russian intelligence that the relationships with any other company like that there are almost every other large cyber security how many other russian company what there is no other


fine with that's so we know you are i think it depends on the legal regime i think your daughter's opinion and sound work makes this point very clearly where you have to look at the specifics of the agency program that issue with that statute says what those regulations say


three years there's no unfortunately just as far as record shows whatsoever my st question is are these surveys being conducted i know they're conducted in


have to give up in cave to the agencies interpretation because we don't have a way of indicating or conjure interpretation then the states are the beneficiaries of the increase rebates that they should have gotten all along and there's all sorts of states and all sorts of remedies and all sorts of regimes that could


court or the supreme court or for that matter any other court that says the consequence the adverse consequence standard has to be criminal as opposed to civil i'm not aware of any case that says that there's lots of cases from a supreme court in this case that involves civil consequences that are monetary


patients relating to the hamilton investigation of why these three were the ones who were particularly anger and why these three what action they actually took to induce the o c c to bring charges so you're


state why cap have been exhausted we still have room under the cap in your four yes no that's that's not that's not an accurate statement there is there is a state plan amount that is calculated for a


you know possible payment methods that a state could use because the one we have before us now does violate the state wide allotment and does apply payments that


providers and that not only addresses the purposes of the paragraph which is to approximate acquisition costs but also is equitable payment because that money is distributed through the


of paragraph of option one average acquisition cost rate setting in the paragraph to pare that the got the government the rule the knowledge is that this was set this way to quote better represent


really trying to sort of artificially cleaved this into the sort of the st half of the conspiracy and not look at the big picture but they had adequate if i may just finish my sentence that they had adequate notice there were as i said before in response to your honor there was no


shows that the express statement rule was the last thing that came in in the senate report right you're talking about the god frank legislative history on here yeah but i got that express statement rule i mean actually


that it was insufficient for an employer to provide a list of criteria where it was not set out which of the criteria were just they save or how they were applied again the issue is that the employee is


address this with the williams case only takes one point in it and held that the fact that the time of the people are what matters and that really would make no sense to disallow the facts alleged on appeal when the whole goal is to determine what are the


you mr matheson if you could just address first the excessive force claim and only with respect to the officers for a moment why doesn't this state claim it's it maybe it may be that it didn't happen that's a separate issue but he says


don't know maybe maybe it should be material because you might win you know what we read these cases are saying we have a special rule when you're charged with possession which is to say you can't later say gee the search that showed that i have the


think i think and that's why ross would like to sort of decouple relation back from his obligation to provide this court with supporting facts and if you decouple them if you just say all we're trying to do is provide notice of the claims then maybe ross could prevail and you create that


requirement and we're worried that this will undercut the specific repinning peter carmen so with the proceeds petition is it really your position that the failure to say see the order of firms


problem that went on addressed by the california department of corrections in contrast berndt had in the in the late one nine hundred ninety s and two thousand totally different x work experience than


incidents and also there was evidence that to inmates in particular contributed to more than half of the indecent exposure incidents one was wired jackson and she bit into that unit knowing


you know i am not familiar enough with his award to say exactly what he said he said


baez used was construing a statute that absolutely required you know violence force and but that's not the definition they gave of what i just read


intercourse has a very specific legal and medical meaning and the start of the statute does not require that it could be you know these are distasteful things i mean you know a digital penetration however slight that's not intercourse i mean you know it's it's you know we're descending


how he way that and why he decided to to admit it so i don't you know you cannot if there isn't a case where you can't


express scripts and c v s caremark along with two others in the state court of new york it's a bit unusual in this case as to the procedure that took place after and it does have


witness to have the witness bring documents without necessarily appearing before them my argument is that's included in the powers that the powers are and if they wanted to go into the process of


prejudice ledger but let me turn to the other side because the key argument that mr alford makes is this evidence the interview statements were prejudicial because the prosecutor used them in her closing argument to make my client look like like a liar


time he committed the crime and trial to make up any sort of defense that's an argument that can be made irrespective of any prior statements and didn't could only be used and


court analyzed the original complaint rather than the first and then complained yes if that's error at all why isn't the error harmless the error is not harmless because if you look at the original complaint and what the


finance who was responsible but the but now we're back looking at this accounting mistake where is the thrust of the argument is that if everyone in your sales division says every project i've worked on loses money then


customers and its relationship with its california customers a trademark is a designation of good will and reputation with one's customers and dell fix itself of course was here the demands were demands and


review the complaint in this instance because there are multiple statements that clearly give rise to the impression that casey barrett is accusing


are speaking on controversial issues of public opinion and public concern are allowed to express their opinions that creates the robust debate that partington stands for that we found in the thomas case you were on in dogs in the crow case all of these cases decided by the


broad general right it can't be violated and numerable ways there aren't a bunch of different applications i'm kind of having a hard time equating not indicating that you've been shot in the foot with


this in the earlier question the fact that judge mcnamee may have been wrong and i don't think he was in proceeding as he did based upon those events that was similar to but if he was wrong in that and if


into the matter that are governed by the military something bad on the ferry thakur and we're not permit it to do well your honor i believe that if you're dealing with a judgment call or discretion i agree with


pardon me for a minute i don't believe the record that i'm aware of shows that the room was rented but it wouldn't make a difference anyway because again lance corporal custer model was assigned there because of a military that


and and if someone can go onto your property and there is nothing you can do you can resort to anything in the law to stop them from being on your property i think it's safe to assume that they have some interest on that proper in


case they filed an unfair labor practice charge i want to dress one case to go back to the set of cases to go back to the takings analysis


the sensors that entrance which apparently could occur at any time and in any number and could occur during business hours you know that that was a much different


nursery for our packing company versus william b gould the fourth submitted for decision and we're now in adjournment now i know we have some students here we will go to a conference and when we're finished with the conference i think judge


percent of the civil penalties they will they have a direct interest in the outcome which is sort of what happened all the dipak a litigation couple decades ago which was for millions and millions and possibly even billions of dollars and


well i understand you know your case but one thing you need to know when you go on appeal is that it's not enough even if this case were cited and even if it was a case we were to look at it's


all right this case is submitted i will take case one six seven zero zero zero three submit it and one seven one five one one six and submit it and the calendar is over


injected into the case by the defendants which is what happened here and in those cases the courts are unanimous that there needs to be an individual ised determination that this particular litigant poses a threat of


but even so this court under plenary review and carpenter versus file recognizes has never set a precedent for what a district court must do at trial regarding shackling and because of that the error here wasn't plain in addition


committed to providing coverage or considering coverage under the policy yes it would be another if you need a suit you would need to trigger the duty to defend or indemnity obligations


contributions that's where it's stated and that's how it happens but the fiduciary duty if i understand your argument correctly would come from having control over the plans assets and that gets us back to basra are these yet the plans assets and


so we're back around is that right you are right and the difference in boss if you look closely as to what those agreements state i said this case is even more it's very different from boss because those agreements were very very


court in in cruise vs city of anaheim has stated that it would be unquestionably reasonable for a police to shoot a suspect in cruz's position who like mr elkins was


because he saw the knife lower he saw mr rhys stepped back there was no more threat two seconds later deputy rose approaches and without seeing a knife at all without any advancement any command any


questionnaire that's handed out is the questionnaire as it's being handed out drafted for the plaintiffs the plate of lawyer knew that he was going to be on the jump drive


is mentioned this morning in terms of the coextensive regulation and the fact that it's these are collectively bargained agreements the you know they're not represented employees that are at the mercy of the employer they they are represented by two of the most powerful unions in the world quite


new york where lead counsel went out and contacted a number of class for a potential class wraps by solicitation and he was ethically charged and they said no it's your his duty to do that in this particular


all and we have claimants from each of the three amid repeal or state's let me try to start by answering your honour's questions that you've had so far what would happen on remand first of all the district court should appoint a separate counsel to


not going to get any money anyway it's too late for them the only reason they're not going to get any money and the only reason that their claims have no value whereas the other repeal are states claims do have value is that lead counsel committed malpractise and they can sue


amended complaint can be filed which will relate back to the original complaint now so then the original complaint here will be for massachusetts which was including the consolidated point for new hampshire which had a complaint


only person who benefited from that stipulation was a leak counsel because it enabled him to hide his malpractise and start the clock ticking on the one year for point from a practice that stipulation


to the action here and race judicata would still apply there are for instance there's no question that california would suggest that compliance with the g c a is an element of the cause


to see how that issue could be resolved on a motion to dissolve it was eliminated after four weeks i mean that's part of the record the employer states ok so that's a different thing so if they're saying that it was a permanent job but in any event it was a limited


this court is we need to get past the pleadings phase to to examine exactly what is happening one of the key things we do not have the documents that we are missing are the participation agreements those participation agreement will indicate


compensation it's direct so that's even less plausibly alleged but i'd like to address that even if question suppose there were investments in mutual funds or some other kind of something that resulted in indirect


made the same observation in the sad sad sad case saying that it's not unreasonable to believe that somebody might help a defendant flee and that's sufficient to help show that defendant has the means to flee


issue that we're presenting of course is whether or not the notice to appear whether the arrest the immigration arrest that occurred back in two thousand and twelve and then again in two thousand and sixteen was done


five i can't really imagine that situation taking place but the supreme court has said again and again and again that the plan is the centerpiece of a recess that the court has no authority to change the plan that the courts


you are the actual terms and conditions of course that's not what it should say the there is obviously really tell me why it should just tell me why it obviously shouldn't say that the obviously here there was a mistake


requirement is a it should be a practical one and not a technical one there should be a balance between weighing the the inequities or the it inconveniences of piecemeal litigation before this court


short quote on page seventeen of my brief and this is from the decision already it's just a few lines the claimant and his mother describe i should point out by the way that it's i don't


test i think has to be picked about a little bit thank you thank you both we'll reserve


obviously the statement by mcginn was being used and promoted to the jury for the truth of what it's in your honor that there was circumstantial evidence of the payments like what there were identical


companies is the have if you do reason one create a have a good faith basis we are not going to second casts all of your opinions and judgments it's just a terrible world to get into it does it it


were they were distributed between being under forty and over forty that would be one thing but it looks based on plausible reading of the complaint is that only one of the fifty four was forty and everybody else was younger


nine twenty four while the two were read together that was the intent to make sure law enforcement officers not so plain were really looking to the intent although i didn't mean i didn't mean to imply that anybody would need summer school in order to deal with the statute i'm


find that he engaged in a minor will so regardless of your political standard i think the factual findings which are reviewed for clear are clearly meet both standards and search the extent that there was some imprecision in our comments or in the judge's comments i think it would be immaterial isn't it the case the


did not guarantee it why should mr karr's affidavit enough to put that concern to rest the main concern is that he received counsel from the same attorney that represented him before the district court and it was submitted through that counsel


be your opponent we should most likely wait for student sims don't you think because the supreme court may decide that a building is a mobile a mobile home when there's some very compelling discussion thank


necessary to lay the groundwork for peremptory knowing in a trial where all the government's witnesses work for law enforcement and mr miller is accused of lying to law enforcement we need to know if there's anyone connected to law enforcement if we're going to intelligently exercise this and the fact that some people


this case and i can hardly find a case where where they don't just make that point that the burden of proof is is on the defense perhaps i should move on i'm sorry the burden of proof is on the government


modify that resident care plan so an lpn cannot make a final decision that for example we're no longer going to do so is that the board's position at so long as there is somebody else senior somebody who


brooks as he was coming toward mr brooks he made certain threatening statements to mr brooks putting mr brooks in the position where he felt he had to defend himself the judge irizarry rejected the self defense claims of your


center of gravity facts that all those facts came out in the center of gravity analysis once he decided new york law applied we had summary judgment motions and our position was that she never consented and a jury should


and it's important to key hone in on that word an allegation alone this wasn't just an allegation on write this definitely gets passed the ball to only standard terms of the specific the specificity of her complaint so


yes here you know the district court was correct in that mr kiernan did not engage in any political or protected speech he merely was he


activity or some political speech here if the investigation started two months before the claimed political activity or political speech then we can't draw any kind of inference to that effect what did you understand your adversaries claim as adverse action to


officers to get that day after the piers promotion after he told the town board my client was days away from being indicted why shouldn't the chief of police expect even demand that his officers support his agenda


would have been inappropriate because you know if it's only you can if you can only get the tax refund through seventy four twenty two and thirteen forty six a one then the court should have dismissed the action and doing


an appendix five eighty one and what he's doing he's reading from a document that's not in evidence that happens at trial fairly often and there was an objection and we come to side bar and judge mosque half says you're reading from something that's not evidence and there is a


by ordering a trial date for all defendants she effectively ordered a joint trial date and so whether one whether one views it as functionally a functional analysis or whether one views that order of a trial date as effectively


again i think part of this there are two levels of which this question operates one is whether the immigration judge was factually right or wrong in her case and conclusion but the other is whether she is a matter of process explain


the page numbers the th circuit says that the statute does not place a burn in on an ample can to demonstrate that relocation is impossible and it did the actually here do that place the


assessment of mr batts to the statutory sentencing factors at thirty five fifty three day at least one of them such that imposition of the condition which would further one of the purposes of sentencing for example specific


to collapse and fall down who in the english language wouldn't think that was a loss that resulted from the defect in the concrete but it has to be a the original loss excluded loss in this case is caused by


that issue way from the jury yes he did you want to make this argument that he took he improperly took the issue way from the jury or i thought that your argument was that he just decided in the wrong way when he dismissed


point though i mean the argument is essentially that there was no probable cause this was a this was a motor vehicle accident there was there was a little there was anger as there always is during car accidents this


stayed the the stipulation by sent to the court was signed by the attorney for the state and myself and at the time that it was sent it had not been sown want ordered by the court by the court of claims


n the first case new ground the bank of america


yes i messed up but i still would like to remain continued to testify that this marriage was entered into in good faith and the immigration judge just didn't believe that and the board and over of you said yeah those adverse factors are pretty serious and


operating as it's supposed to well there's a statute have a time limit on the period of time that the government can and can investigate my understanding is that there is a period of time a shorter period a specified period of time for the government to


your journal of what you did each day but you know is essentially an explanation that reasonably fills the time this didn't do that it's just his explanations are not specific to this case i mean except for the police reports but those take two days and they don't


those two side by side and they asked me to reconsider them both at the same time yes you've made some double jeopardy arguments i wonder if you could turn to those in particular to overlap you argue it between section


treated as different crimes


filing your honor i i think that is the nub of the issue and although the applicant is not here to testify i believe you could say that you relied on counsel that the judge told in this information and it


the the best near cases it often comes up in the context of change compensation right so a commission agreement so it's been timi handling cases like that to talk about you know about with respect to an arbitration


table that is a right but if the employee knows about the opt out and chooses not to opt out assuming you don't find ambiguity then they're stuck thank you reserve two minutes for oh i'm sorry


good right now we're going to keep the old higher rates in effect so congress gave employers the right to say no no plan you're required to update annually based on your experience you haven't done that so please go do it but what congress did not do was


this plan tried to take away that special exemption the employer in that case had not withdrawn so it wasn't about withdraw liability so they just wanted to rule declared null and void so they would know if they withdrew whether they would have


this case then the way it's handled kind of across the board the difference is the language of the statute that authorizes attorneys fees as actual damages this is not a typical case in which attorneys fees


they made the findings of fact necessary in order to support that conclusion of the law because as a matter of georgia law the evidence was insufficient to support that finding and as a matter of georgia law your


the case and then right or you know it's my understanding and correct that he was not going to try the case if he was going to be it permit it to be a witness he never mr wilson actually never withdrew


that eventually would have reached that point i think it reached the point somewhere between of at least somewhere between the fourth and fifth time the jury said we're done we can't reach it she's not deliberating let us go


that's being reviewed if there is a determination that the speedy trial act was or was not violated under the


that company x if it buys a company why can't it have a custodian come in and say yes we have used this other companies information but what we have here is company x eighteen t this was the worst one this guy


new she was clearly whether they were required and there was language in the opinion well they're not required and it seems like they're not bar use the word seen but the question of whether or not they


is to approve a subclass and he could certify a subclass rather than just rejecting certification go to you know take the individuals who is dames who would have been searched for a legitimate reason wouldn't be a subclass they wouldn't have had


than it would have been at the end of the chapter thirteen mistook she was current at the time of filing she could have continued making her payments to suncoast she would have been current on her mortgage in or note


well if she is she i mean i'm this is a question but if she was not if she was found not guilty of count why and then the rest of it false as well right i don't have to be ok during


day and a half after a two day trial and the natural inference is that it those statements that you just referred to judge jordan and the and the money orders that were found in the consul of the car


ok to use these terms you are absolutely as a business person going to think to yourself i'm not letting go of my experience personal in this office the fact that the gal is black is causing a problem for my older white employees


a on the individual education plan and judge maher heard this case and he left a lot of things open but the one thing that he did observe from the record as has been pointed out it was


all right i think we're ready to think


do you contend that the first amendment issue is need to go to a jury because there are disputes of fact about for example the way that the client


and at every stage the district court tells you you're getting closer to losing you're getting closer to losing but you continue and you lose and you appeal and the court affirmed this court affirms is an exceptional case against a losing defendant in a lanham


supreme court have jurisdiction over that appeal outside the federal habeas context i'm not sure and i guess what i'm suggesting is that unless i'm missing something that's sort of the jumping off point because the federal habeas context measures


judge does not have the authority to simply recall jurors a year after a verdict and start questioning about what happened here and what happened there during the trial i don't have a couple minutes left i actually think your strongest issue the first issue and see the evidence


here there are cases all over the country with problems with banks doing things and one of the problems that we sat in here if you look at the complaint you know if there's a problem stated clearly let's get to an answer but muddying the waters doesn't get an answer from your


that last part is pretty clear whether it's valid or not it was protecting the judgment dismissing your complaint with prejudice that


a judgment against that fake dummy debtor you pursued that fake dummy tetter but we got it when we get to know that it was a fake we didn't know the facts at the time we had been given that was part of that does see in this case


complaint we did but we didn't have a chance to make every every point what were you prohibited from claiming we were prohibited from claiming the fraud on giving the money cash that came in we found that out about six weeks eight weeks before


here decker l l p with me as my colleague kathy wyman so a lot of issues in this case there is a great injustice in this case although i may disagree with mr wilks over where the injustice lies here the


s claim if you don't think it's misleading then you could at least find under sixty ninety two f that is unfair because i think that there are things that are unfair that are not necessarily mislead and we couldn't we could only find it's misleading and it's not inherently unfair to try


certainly your honor and in terms of what on the record shows these witnesses are gay what what the courts have all held is that when looking at the first prong of batson the that prong is not an onerous one that's what the course of said it's all you have to do is


companions are gay the city just struck the only two witnesses who were gay and the reason that they knew that was because based on their his observations of the jurors and based on the fact that one of them said that he was in a domestic relationship you're saying that you guys were


procedure or judge king saying to be reluctant to allow you to ask that type of a personal question that's correct or wrong so he went on about saying you're not to be produced by the witness by a considerations dealing with their race their gender their


when it did it found that the district judge has to ask a question like this when we have issues of sexual orientation that permeate the case it says sexual activities an extra couple a bound up with the central


inaccurate is that every single one of the oreo expenditures that are alleges oriya wrongful acts came out of the steel deprogram that were wrongful acts so there were five hundred three oreo properties


other two thousand and eight is a provided a that and it's and it's and in so in years provided a wealth of different kinds of cases against bank officers and directors alleging all sorts of improper acts which would have nothing to do the


thirty feet five fifty three a factor yes or and i mean and that it and that it is not properly considered as part of criminal history that i share my only argument is the point that's that is it's just a sequencing argument for


inside out not being able to sleep with that work would that be a physical manifestation i absolutely would be ok you're not imagine should suffer that in the first month we had no proof one way to make you not answer


least a strong argument that you ought to be a stopped from insisting upon a single claim here but goes seems pretty clear to me that there was no wrongdoing


that seems unfair but if when you looked at the probably exact terms of the solicitation was not a strong argument to make the government reserve the right unilaterally to withdraw the solicitation and not make any award and that's exactly what it did so you can't


adopted if that really is florida law means that the first sign of trouble in florida you sue the manufacturer not the first sign of trouble so first sign of dramatic change of condition sue the manufacturer even if you have no


specifically by composite confinement where that extends the supreme court used the confinement example specifically to explain that confinement if you have an individual is incapable of being unveiled or decoy such as an infant again going


different here and the reasoning the holding of the case includes the holding and the reasoning that was necessary to get to that holding and hear the reasoning


useful notion when we're trying to reconstruct some prior twenty years ago still state conviction we have to discern what necessarily was the basis of the jury's finding but now we are in the real world and here in the real world we know we can look at


all i thought the district court said when the district court was discussing what it had held on the challenge to employment out


testified to that the the the bottom line is that they took away in advance go which she had had for since two thousand and nine in


homeowner him self testifying that he saw people from time to time crossing his property well three hundred homeowners in that subdivision are allowed to cross his property are allowed to put picnic tables whatever they want not


that yes your honor and just to address what the chief judge raised earlier i would just say that the testimony from the appraiser made the presumption that the public beach parcel would continue to be used as a


pair control of the car he says he puts the officer immediately back to the traffic that's whizzing by that you can see repeatedly and after the command to show me your hands get out the car get


that all you have to do is create a settlement website and put your information on the website and not introduce it to the public and keep in mind that when this case was filed there were two forms of notice given e mail


or the fees or the fee procedure or the deadline was anything but in plain sight front and center for those who were interested in the settlement and your honors this isn't a passive


resolution of the cases or trusted to him and finally here i think the class has decided the merits and the value of the settlement you know it's a truism


we have a statute eris twenty three dash nine three zero which makes it clear that a claim of processing representative separate from an insurance carrier may be found


really the way this case should be framed is what was alleged what was conceded or admitted in the record below what has been weighed on appeal what was alleged in this case was a failure to accommodate and only a failure to accommodate plus


lee this case involves a general question of insurance coverage and insurance coverage law under a standard commercial general liability insurance policy of which the operative coverage form


contract then we would have had the opportunity to address that totally different case for their own purposes they decided to say that this was a covered klan


it also true that if there's no standing in federal court then there's no jurisdiction in federal court and they can bring the case in state court and you can't remove it even if you try to because there's no jurisdiction in federal court so it gets real litigated in state court isn't that actually created at this case been filed as it's currently procedurally


three conditions really create a chain of speculation chain of speculative possibilities that may or may not occur in the future moreover he hasn't even testified that he would or he will purchase the products if these three conditions even take place so it's this


incentive not to raise it in the pleadings instead to wait until the summary judgment stage and then raise it their work the incentive i mean the judge could have if the judge could have reopened


the fourth circuit out of the southern district of new york the case out of the district of iowa those all of found that the seven o two exemption applies to


exactly correct we were not a party but i was not not going to show up in front of the district court when he ordered that we appear and so we appeared and i had that hearing the district court said he was inclined to dismiss this case and he ordered parties to submit briefing by


that's not going to be a race judicata there may be other issues we don't know but they certainly can seek it for different goods and services what we're looking at here and what the trademark trying to appeal board will be looking at is the list of goods and services in the


purchase housing on the island and for many service members that is a very substantial amount ranges from twenty five hundred dollars a month to forty five hundred dollars about the pentagon your rank so when you pair those two things up it implies to folks that they're going to get all of that basic


they switch from documentation of like office notes or findings in trump's case and then they go over to answer questions about how he would perform in the work history that's where they're united i would also say with


maybe it is procedurally this may not be the case to try to resolve because procedure in this case is so incredibly mixed up and so i guess the question i have for you and i'm asking opposing counsel the same question so you're ready is why can't we just send this case to mediation you


then later there was a i believe was a two thousand and three or two thousand and four amendment that said well you know never mind the rules of evidence will simply apply and specifically the rule that says if you can show some sort of legal legal illegality in what you've


out there on the front i'm trying to figure out why and so different for you than what i was doing so i don't think i have an i trust liability here so and yet on the other hand i think simplied


case your honor because everything that marty did was for the benefit of its members even for the selection of the products mr thompson was very clear that he would never select a program


act its requirements are strict to use for f property there must be no feasible and prudent alternative which means under the case law and the regulations that a


found in twenty three u s c one thirty four one thirty five the statute requires transportation agencies to look at least twenty years out of the future so transportation planning necessarily by law


two describes is to accomplish the very significant need now i wanted to in specific answer to judge thomas question your honor you're entirely correct if if the project were to be moved in the area of


are related to eating disorder includes gastro priestess osteopenia attack cardia and the record shows that she suffered from this disease since she was fourteen years old and that she has a severe case of this disorder in fact in april of two thousand and fourteen she was hospitalized for a condition in


are outside of the plan and as i mentioned blue shield isn't even a party to this agreement and obviously christine is not a part of that agreement either so the parties to that agreement are months anita and magellan so for similar reason the court shouldn't hold


the current reviews to see whether additional treatment was medically necessary he said it appears that the pain i'm paraphrasing but appears the patient is getting better here's the patient is ready to leave residential treatment but i'm going to


the standard that we're going to have to meet and i think the burden that we're going to have to show goes to what i'm about to argue which is i think that the elements that we would have to prove are the same elements we'd have to prove under ten b five claim and so you know and i think i i think again


to the nuveen decision with respect to economic loss in a secure in a ten b five claim that window of damages a smaller of that goes up to put to the close of escrow that is did the misrepresentations of fact they fall within the zone of risk do


for purposes of our discussion right now you know they may be enlightening but what i want to know now is is there a california court of appeals decision looking at similar language that says that


case the court talks a lead great about why the petition clause protects the right to sue in court so what happened willow was that the court decided well


band that is heavily regulated and in that case public television channels had been reserved and denver area challenge the cable


report which paired shortly thereafter so my position is again an evidentiary hearing would be needed to see whether he was taking their pain that medication along with the painkiller at the plea and see if that would have an impact on his ability to comprehend the


he's been receiving the lowest level of treatment that is available in state prison which is a can to the type of treatment that someone in the outside world would receive if they're getting outpatient psychiatric services i don't think that that


requested fees that is exhibit a significantly higher than their percentage of requested relief be obtained for this their clients this court specifically stated mccallum's victory clearly fell far short of of his goal therefore it is unreasonable


so he doesn't do an appeal well the thing that he thinks he recognizes from the file is that there was no claim that's the reason he says he didn't file an


books as in been changed so it still allowed defendants to sort of engage in the same conduct of checking in with the v a and just returning a check before it's sent back to the


souvenirs only now we have a very different case because you can we have a very limited license now we're not arguing for a complete license it's a limited license for souvenirs only so if i use or if mr hanson uses


forces that's their purpose they are not the supreme court once said that court martials as an institution or singularly inept in dealing with an nie subtleties of


circuit so how does it apply here i don't think it applies here for several reasons first we think that they that they waive this argument by not raising it below but leaving that aside they've she'd judge robinson in his


regulation and it's not intrastate commerce the banta court pointed out and judge john agreed that the definition of commerce is very very broad and you know you could go way back to wickard v filburn


of of inspecting them and charging for each one and not take into account whether or not the they warranted the borrowers or these charges should be passed on or you just said that they didn't i know i i thought you were


that there was a false carfax report saying that it had been flooded in hurricane harvey it was actually a thriving business and it was doing great at the singapore wouldn't have necessarily been worth less


also three undisputed facts that serve as a bulwark against o'brien's attempt to create some type of factual issue in this case so maybe i'll turn to the three facts the undisputed facts that are bulwark


available to drive so the trouble issue isn't whether he was available at one instance to drive it's whether he was in the pool of available drivers and his driving was never restrict how are you in the pool if your


content or higher it's undisputed the policy is reasonable it's undisputed he violated the policy and because of that his terminations is lawful because under enter a six one three you cannot hold


until approximately twenty thirteen and from that time to the present he has stayed in treatment consistently and his symptoms of depression and anxiety and borderline personality have


didn't have exposure to woodworking fumes i work in a controlled environment and this is these are things i would have told the examiner and if i would have if the examiner would have heard this from me in the exam the kind of crap opinion based upon my


on the fact that it knows it has a copy of the pseudo random binary sequence that's what it's using to to figure out what data was intended to be sent


because you don't want to force an agency to an all or nothing to her only choice maybe it has to do with considering the cumulative effect of things but if it's a


only the one that has been claimed i have a few responses to that your honor my first response is that policy decision was are you made by the court and while no i we look we we get our kind don't worry i have their response when you make


was that it's fun disputed that two thirds of the outer layer was removed that was also disputed from start to finish and what judge more teams found in essence that what was left was a


staff four hundred judge by says she doesn't know whether she would have fired him for three or four or five or four hundred case production all we know is that he the reason he did not keep his case processing time was longer than others is because he didn't have the


you presume that it's impossible almost for two elements in the claim to be condensed into a single element in the acute device and tell me how the function where result test we differ in your mind


and these are similar to the ball bearings we all know they work with heavier loads are set up all in the race you'll have a tapered kind of oblong object that is more


substantial deference to congress as a termination i mean i have stand your argument that while that my air automobiles polluted because they have tapered roller bearings in them somewhere but it's up to congress to draw the line as to whether or not


it's obvious to the judge that they're they're different now and then let's talk about the prior art let's assume the prior art should have been considered what this a prior art do if you just look at what it shows the prior art makes


you know just as you look at this court has cases tell us obviously that you look at the overall appearance of the product but this court also has cases to tell us that you don't take one characteristic which is common and blow it out of proportion here the circular


which means that you could change your claim from an invalid plea broad claim to a valid claim those correct and the district court there is also discussion about how the phone and


site update solution versus anchor north


reasonable and it has to be based on the evidence they can't simply look for causation in the air or pick up causation like lint in your pocket they've got to have some link between what was used and taken by us


you don't think that the board's decision should be affirmed on that alone but and if you don't think that explain why i don't it's difficult to read the board's decision because they looked at it never looked at newman's mark they kept pointing to


are in the store in the on line mall one reading all of the points to read the none of the points three reading some of the points for donate to charity that's your one two three four the four comes


was certainly philips does talk about understanding the basically the forest before looking at the individual trees and that's what we contented to have not been the error and we believe that the error was that the


use is that it falls within this range and you see you've created a sliding scale in your point your honor and i apologize now i understand where i where i'm led you astray and i did not mean to do that type of position has been consistently the one hundred five degrees number


lying on a record is there any is was there an ordinary observer or which i think is probably the better test after egyptian goddess but taking the ordinary


to them whereas maybe other grounds are are different and you had somewhat and the board didn't explore the any possible differences with respect to the regulation


tells you that then it would have been obvious if the phone is already sending its network capabilities to also send its security capabilities but then the board went further and they said that this makes sense to have to follow the phone and to follow the


active duty the action there is the is actually the service member's actions not the act of separation in fact as fabro pointed out separation is not used in the recruitment statute but you see response


applicants claimed vention will block all international calls is irrelevant to the decision and so forth there's various others explanation of that language the explanation with your interpretation there is actually i the


court held that in that terms in the preamble and it's limiting and she held that the i think direct system is not a virtue affiliate system i think system is a hug style system just


court but the interesting opportunity to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings and to avoid ratification of a principle of law announced by the district court which is contrary to


presentation to the fish law firm i mean this was a fake court specifically referred to the firm as a whole not just mr john your honor i don't believe that to be correct either the ultimate conclusion in the in the case which was


findings including the credibility of witnesses is arbitrary work appreciates and that this court has said that when the special master looked at the relevant record evidence and draws plausible and reasonable inferences from that


front of a special master and they declined but the special master's credibility findings had nothing to do with demeanor like reading the character they were about the fact that her own testimony was internally inconsistent especially after you and contradicted by the paper record but


talked about status of survivors surviving spouse in light of that person's remarriage or not one of these kids previous remarriage and as judge time your pointed out the whole notion of the if the stats for section has to do with the


what else if the rugby league they also sold panties with what they so they sold this body shape or one line and in the stores they set it in to the intimate section i guess let me put the


imported with the instructions telling you to infringe that that can be the subject rouge in order i do not see any cases of go beyond that and i believe that your description of the young and bake like


selling a bicycle that is capable of substantial not infringing use is not infringement but if the bicycle that's true here that's the problem and knows what the difference here is intent here either there is there is an intent and a collaboration


were the imports to men like for one percent no your honor i don't think it would make a difference just like those of the commission can even though ninety nine percent of the imports are not infringing they can bar the imports because one percent of them might be used as infringing man no not


specificity which is not have strapped anymore where would you place such a line in this case i think the easiest way to answer that question is simply to look at claim one which is really all we need to


the motion on the other three cases which they file is a motion for requiring they criticize the judge if you look at their grief for number one spending too much time on the the abstract which is actually content and column


agreeing that the question that was with me when i read it i thought this doesn't support what's that express affirmative statement that's made in the birth i think that if i may or honor the the other thing to keep in mind here


of my argument if you look at what happened with plane one and three and it's very interesting when he gets the rejection and he makes the statement we've all been talking about what does he do it does not and then claim one it never change what he


negotiations wouldn't it be normal to expect somebody to research ending applications or do you rely on the other side to tell you what else is pending that's not included


here is a kind of property which somehow would have to be returned to crowds or by the defendant that seems to me to be to be difficult we're out of the system here is is actually there is tangible


quote system whatever that was correct obviously as runners know a patent only really gives you the legal right to exclude somebody else from making using selling or offering for sale the system itself with all of


the medical examiner statement and then the word in the court looked at praise service in service and post service exposure to new ways also


there was an appeal while the case was on appeal it was settled and the appeal was dismissed would not have resulted in collateral estoppel not of this language no mom i'm assuming that there is no stipulation to forget about the


and argue that they were the title to their very full opportunity to litigate those arguments and that they would want to make their their presentation to this court and i think more likely than not this court would say no we've heard it we've ruled claim


there's not infringement because of b which is essentially what the stipulation right here and there was an affirm by our court just in rule thirty six affirms


also in the specification can i just ask him why or why batteries now are perhaps they should be perhaps they should be they provide the power it's not very big power at that


reasonable language of the agreement merely because it says you shall sell but those shall sell is subject to all the other terms and that is what we would read it out of if it's dealing with method of sale it's


look at in the waiver process which is in the nature of clemency like a pardon just as a the governor could look at actual innocence to decide whether to pardon a criminal but that doesn't mean that actual innocence ceases to be a defense in


i think a plausible inference is that to the extent that he had to submit records of his performance for example or are required to cover letters that that they did not find that they are as good as the other


quite clearly the state court based its determination denying the four forty one a a misunderstanding to say the least of the record because there is not the slightest indication in this record and the people never even argue that the failure of defense


first occurs and in order to satisfy the balancing test of rule twenty four more which is to allow for official litigation and not inefficient intrusion into litigation you know order to allow if that balancing test to occur you wait


we recognize the threat to cuts interest and we filed the mediately and that is an unusual circumstance in this case militating against the finding of an timeliness and i think it's also supported by and judge lawyers opinion in the row which i


mccormick and bones were known to work together he twice witnessed bones in mccormick pooling their money he traveled with mccormack and bones and fats to rutland vermont to sell crack you have audio calls from jail in two


thank you just briefly first will my colleague refers to conceding the less serious counts and that's just a characterization they disagree with isn't it a fact that what was conceded is something they could not


relevant conduct even had he beaten the conspiracy might have it might have but you know try and you're playing odds true the other thing is i think you have to look at the context in which defense


you either way this is the guy's getting her well if he gets murdered you got a murder statute but the issue that judge brought up that frankly is one that we i'm waiting to see in a case from the government


if you have under the modified you know the girl who wrote a statute that in most of its imaginable applications involves force shooting


you judge jacobs i'm john schreiber i represent the appellants and it would please the court i would like to spend most of my argument referring to the jury charge argument and at the end the rescission argument this court


the holding of this particular case and rio which is not all recording is protected activity it's it would please recording is protected activity if employees are acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection and no overriding employer interest is present


no proof that he directly participated in any murder and this brady evidence undercuts the government's theory for example well if he wasn't if he was not part of the commission in one nine hundred seventy nine and the government had at least four


said the government's proof concerning the go on a murder is akin to the movie the godfather and a movie script is not the type of evidence to sentence men to one hundred years in prison that alone implies that the sentencing judge did


it's as we point out in our brief it stores the record but the collateral manager believe that they were selling it for probably ten or fifteen fifteen basis points below what the intrinsic i was in forfeiting the litigation recoveries that went with those


lo and behold all we got to do is argue and nothing ever happened it was a mystery to me i read his opinion and if you read it i have a hard time understanding why we didn't get a response and based on


is zero chance this jury calculated pre judgment interest they didn't know what an interest rate was they didn't know they were supposed to calculate prejudgment interest titans expert simply calculated the difference between what it should have taken care bridge to come up


hearing and also in addition were pretextual in other words as a cover for the real reason for the discharge which very clearly hear this is a very straightforward case and very straightforward set of facts in march twenty fourth meeting ninety


did go through several leaves of absence is and returns to the school was not required to go through the reactor process she doesn't plead that there was a difference in the treatment as well as regards the reentry process for student amber too


so levy putting that aside there are a number of other aspects in which this claim really fails to fulfill the requirements of your task i thought i heard you say that this is the only claim but there was a retaliation claim before just for the and the retaliation claim really fails most


the record that irrespective of whether he was right or wrong about his finding on quantity he would have imposed the same sentence which is exactly the issue that your honor owed call with decided in united states versus


and then asked if they want to speak that that is necessarily i don't illegal to stop interrogation there is no support in the case law or in common sense for that proposition your honour's i see have gone over my time whether he'd be willing to speak to them asked


of those eleven i mean to suggest that you concede that these were not discrimination but you're not choosing to challenge on appeal the two that went to trial mr shop last


minimum requirements that the additional seven years of managerial experience that mr shah had makes him so superior to the selected candidate i think that's a matter for a decision maker with experience in


this something that should go back to the i j a who may very well ridge a different conclusion when he was aware that the thought that he had made any number of


constitute a international terrorism under the statutory definition but the overlap is you know it's not complete the two the two diagrams do not overlap with each other and so it is simply erroneous to say as the district court judge


received funds from the saudi phones the closest they could come as to one of the three attacks they had two relatives one relative each for two of the attackers who got transfers from the saudi committee more than two years before the


terrorist activity and in terrorism and when you know that then from an outside observer to see that even though you know that you continue to supply money to the terrorists or the terrorist organization it's at least


were supposed to check them against and they did all that and they checked the lists and they nonetheless delivered some goods to some people who weren't on any list at the time but later turned out to be terrorists that would be enough to impose liability and that's what we're talking about here as to these three


citation i think will be helpful to your perhaps not but in any event one last point if i may well on this issue of the district court we believe the court had the discretion on this record to make the judgment that scientology was the proper


the terms of the sale with the undercover it's on his person when he ask orts the undercover to the site a person who is this year and expects to get no more than forty bucks if he wants to avoid a


question here is when you're making false statements to the public and false misrepresentations to the public there has to be some corrective to that and just as in the course of litigation you have parties making statements that are inaccurate and they're making arguments that


i imagine it would be a small number i meant it would be a small number but again this is this is an issue that is of public policy importance to new york and it's not settled by any existing case and we do believe if the court does not believe that the statute is


retroactive reading in that one particular statute however in this case the only relevant statute would be for dish one three one point three and two


year order of protection that world pronouncement under new york law is the sentence ms vega understood that she was required as her sentence to comply with a two year order for protection that who protection is not a


if you look at the case that was brought which is brought basically because middle funding did not permit the plaintive to simply dispute his that orally that


entire justification for the doctrine is the need by federal courts to enforce federal laws so it would be quite an expansion to begin to apply that narrow exception to sovereign immunity


is fraudulent and allege that the defendants planned the delegation provision to shield their widespread fraudulent practices from federal court review what that is is an attack on the tribal review provisions not the delegation clause this


factor age standard i agree is higher is but for but it's just the standard articulation above or versus motivating factor for your ultimate question a motion to dismiss are there enough facts here that plausibly meet standard title seven or age


far to the evidence that i take it is part of your application that someone said it wasn't just that anthony rizzo was not there when this particular planning meeting went down


denying mr smathers credit or a reduction of his restitution obligations and finding that there was no suggestion of a connection between


that before the insurance company paid out the defendant had a duty to investigate thoroughly to determine to find and discover and advise the insurance company of all


assert securities claims which if you look at the proposed amended complaint the securities claims are just a reframing of the rico claim that he actually asserted this notion that he didn't know enough facts to plea to security scams of course he did he just played them in the


time and an expense and time in commitment of resources the first goldberger criteria considered and under that consideration and indicated that clearly council have put in substantial time and


this one says the opinion this the government wants this to be interpreted as a solicitation statute so be it we insert the word now to solicitation


issue here so so again that would be a choice for congress to make and all these things should be done on a legislative basis justice kagan mr fischer can you tell me what you think so


alito i find this a very difficult case to decide based on the briefs that we've received in response to the concerns about the effect on personal


is the minimum that mr adams would have to allege in order to have standing suppose he looked up when the next vacancy would occur on any of the cover courts and said i


general francisco mr chief justice and may it please the court as a general rule the president has the unrestricted authority to remove principal officers humphrey's executor recognize an exception for multi member commissions


point because the cabinet is nowhere defined the cabinet is simply a matter of tradition the reason why particular agencies are in the cabinet is typically because the removeable at will but once you say that you can impose at will


is less responsive to congress and therefore however responsive they would otherwise be to the president they don't have to dilute that by trying to worry about what they're going to say to the appropriators when they go up and talk to the appropriators and i


also points out that the critical principle is that an officer is drawn kind of in a magnetic way to the individual that has the ability to remove them and here unlike pausch or unlike miers and even unlike free


approach there is something about me that doesn't like a wall and before i want to have a wall want to know what i'm walling in and rolling out and that's looks to function what did congress have in mind how does it wall in the president what


defend the judgment the law now seems primarily to be arguing that this court made a mistake in granting because of the existence of the ratification question as a ploy mary a matter that was flagged by both sides of the search stage and this court nevertheless granted review and i would respectfully


status of confirmed directors your honor i don't think they've actually ever challenged any action in forcing the rd amendment by confirmed our actors and i don't know what those actions would be to this there is a ministerial


amendment but the rd amendment provides for payments in an ongoing way and including payments under a regular director who is is not constitutionally appointed how does that work what are the


performance of this roller shore all stakeholders of fairness and predictability close quote we agree thank you thank you council rubato mr move my colleague hasn't shown any presidential


you chief justice mr kneedler let's assume you take this out of the context of the government and you simply have a private cause of action that provides for


we think is significant because suits against the government for government employees for president tadic is only rarely been permitted the only time that they would have been permitted were and would have been under bends and this court has


lawyers that was true when this provision was inactive even though those who were lawyers perhaps like me never heard of the word equity when they were in law school so i suppose one of those members


arguing that he has clean hands i mean he's been convicted and he will has the dubious distinction of being the subject of an episode of dirty money on netflix but you you suggested in your brief that because of the safeguards


congress understood that section thirteen b authorizes monetary awards quite to the contrary the prior version of what became sections nineteen triggered extensive debate because there


the exacting standard is carried by the party requesting the information so it would be carried by the respondent in this particular case there has been no showing and no findings of heightened need standards are being met here


that's not happening in the context of natural persons the mark why incident that justice prior brought up has been discussed by sosa and key a bell and in both cases the court assumes that both the frenchman and the new york constable who assaulted an investor in the


is of course making sure the norm is sufficiently rooted in international law as you know and my concern on that is the language of so this doesn't just talk about the norm as you know but footnote


phones is not just potentially to disturb residential privacy it's potentially to disturb them when they're at work when they're on social occasions when for whatever reason they might want to be open to calls from friends or calls from family


i think certainly that this was not a notice legislation it's not legislation the biggest a technical problem i'm talking about the original t c p a now that is this legislation that was intended to address a problem that congress thought was immense


severability inquiry about intent we have to be very careful and specific about what is unconstitutional about the statute and i think what the two thousand and fifteen exemption shows as well is the much more favorable treatment to political or non commercial speech when it


any calls between the holder of government debt and the debtor with strict scrutiny apply


distinguished on that basis would simply encourage congress to enact laws with more of a broad brush it would discourage congress from trying to fine tune the laws and that discourage that would only be


if i say that your client was convicted of violating a breast a revised statutes section twenty eight dash six hundred and eight is that a factual isn't that a


attorney general's discretion and what you've described happens all the time where the i j or the b i a will say i don't need to undertake the categorical analysis and go through the complicated determination of if this is disqualifying or not because i just know that


honor we don't have a history of what types of changes were made what we know is they happened all the time as professor hardaway notes in his brief for example in michigan there were electors who just didn't show up who then were placed on the day that the electoral


them from doing so if anything on your view you're on i'm trying to square how this fits with a popular vote system because if you give people the power to vote and they exercise the power


i would like your true answer to that your honor just so i understand that really votes the three that were rejected by congress were actually faithful they were electors project to create but i mean doesn't congress is tower there's three u s c


viable theory on how to address the spectacle of a bribe elector an elector who votes for photo baggins or one who perpetrate a bait and switch on the people of her state colorado's pledge requirement addresses all such arms


individuals well i have a couple of points your honor st was to driving examples we're not really talking about reckless driving in the abstract we're talking about cases


its creditors and the way it worked is that the turnover provision gives one the authority to come into court and say you are holding my thing that i have it please and if the answer is i've got no debts that should be turned over and if there are disputes to be worked out those are


meeting but correct according to the underlying bankruptcy code policy of encouraging reorganization and so for all of those reasons we believe the seven circuits interpretation is correct and which judgment ought to be affirmed


order to figure out whether the criminal law should be changed to the most obvious example would be this court's decision just a little while ago overturning a key criminal conviction involving white collar crime obviously congress next could do a


type of preventative services that was a new technology that was actually helpful but it was cost prohibitive for just about every employer or any insurance company to cover i certainly think that major r s a could take that into


putting that to the side to restore itself and section two thousand b b dashboard explicitly permits any exemption that doesn't violate the establishment clause and here i don't think there's any plausible argument that the exemptions violate the establishment


all now i think an employer could any sure that had a sincere religious objection to providing the coverage say like the christian brothers they might be able to object i don't see actually had an objection to be clear but they


izzy specifics of the rule being challenged and the nature of the harm that the challengers are alleging and is again indicated that the just the court really took out of all these concerns talked about the need


line holding that there was no seizure there isn't an incorrect reading only you have the reading one hundred are you exactly correct


of the bedrock procedural element prong the fairness part of the proceeding because you kept saying well it's possible for a nine unanimous jury verdict to have reached the right


dot com and then i think the risk of confusion analysis on the back end would also have to account for the fact that each of those is unique and so i respond it would wind up with a very thin trademark protection putting that to one side in the usual case of trademark whatever


you another question and then passing off another services as is what you're really concerned about why didn't an unfair competition law afford you


it around that phrase is slightly different and so if congress is using slightly different words we must assume it had a slightly different intention and maybe we should put it where this kind of ordinary meaning


request as was pointed out this the state said they were not seeking to introduce the evidence and that is from the state themselves that we're not trying to introduce it but we are asking the judge to conclusive judicial notice the


from the jury's consideration


and the underlying sex offense where there is no other criminal history but for driving while suspended charge no other evidence of sexual misconduct and on that record i would submit to the court that none of the cases they've been cited in either of the briefs or any other circuit or this


in harris vs commonweal the court explain that there's no requirement that we look at the defendant's intimidating words or that the conduct be judged no way to mono by the way that i want to get this straight now do you think a person could begin convicted


since you don't appear to have a case squarely on point what is your rationale for arguing that intent to kill does not necessarily require a comparable state of mind it was i think it flows from this court's decision in vincent


carolina pattern jury instructions and the north carolina courts of appeal reviewing jury instructions after jones of all required an intent to kill and north carolina courts happen slide defenses to that ends which are predicated on a specific


expressed its intent to provide very serious and they can punish mn when the victim of that already illegal act is a child i would add that the government's brief explained that this is true in other contexts


goebbels that's correct your honor so i'll go to the to the controlling issue and trust that the this court can reach an up the merits question and the reason is because billman and the reasoning of bill


more than two minutes over the course of thirteen months after his falls mr carter actively sought the attention of the medical attention of prison staff on eleven separate occasions he was prescribed a variety of pain medication including a steroidal injection


serve a good purpose i mean when you think about the fact that if you if something is not clearly steps you don't even have to determine whether or not there's a constitutional right you just go and seize not steps and by doing so yes


apply you told on its face did not apply to brown would you accept that i would accept that john wouldn't specifically deals with aca and brown specifically deals with the guidelines yes there's no way for me to that's really the


reason to hold this will open in the sense of brown is because the question is is he like the mandatory yes that's the difference right there is yet is just another tear there was a hole there but everybody else was just god last you fall along the


good morning may please the court when they were proven on behalf of the united states in many ways i think this case is about asking the right questions and my colleague focuses greatly in the briefing and here this morning on the question of an availability but when it comes to whether


and this court has not had the opportunity to speak in a published way on what good cause is both ferguson and docile didn't get into what good causes because there was no attempt to show good cause the district or didn't find good cause but i think good cause certainly could be an availability but there's


settle and deals don't get made into the are actually there i enlarge i think that's and i think it's all that i think saying that we hadn't made any definite i don't that doesn't go anywhere with me where i think i hope that it could go somewhere i agree or are or i think there could be


parker you could also address the suggestion from the government government seems to be saying that it doesn't matter if you didn't know which direction you should be heading if you wouldn't have been successful because there was


that you're not guilty and to protect yourself from a prosecution but then in kaplan and drysdale right where it is already held that post conviction don't have a right to these even for your right to counsel of choice


going to be but that kind of issue has not been decided and is pending so there is no case that goes that substitute assets automatically become the same as proceeds and the issue is still up in the air and hasn't been decided yet that's the


forfeited and it was forfeited for the same reason all other properties forfeited by the department of justice and the reasons are laid out in the kaplan decision there's number of them one is punishment in a victim case forfeitures are used to return money to the


impermissibly add to what had already been defined within that subsection of the guidelines and now implicitly the sentencing commission has recognized that and has taken the proper


least on one occasion host mathis this court has recognized that mathis is there but that it has no effect on the previous holding in flores grenada's given that then again because of what we have in williams in the clear law and that


library at some point your honor he had access to the law library i think the record reflects at some points while he was detained at the prison but i'm speaking about the portion where he was confined at the time of the district court litigation he was confined in the psychiatric


had to do with his inability to be around any object that he could turn to self destructive purposes a book a pencil paper or anything of that sort but given those limitations she was


time i'm not sure that that argument is particularly help you can see the circular nature of it the fact that he didn't recognize might simply be further indication of what appears on paper to be a fairly


air when it accepted his case if your honour's don't have any further questions the united states requests this court affirmed the judgment of the district court thank you thank you


reasonable doubt about perts guilt that's true but some aspects of her her statements were always consistent and here's another thing the government


know we didn't call mr shell and i'll be honest i don't remember if i moved to admit that piece that that follow up interview of him or not i know i attached it to the government's response to the motion for new trial so the court had up to interview at some point i don't remember if i moved admitted


actually lacked jurisdiction to even enter an order because when they looked to the record they found no motion to dismiss and no order granting a motion to dismiss thus the defendant's appeal in that case was still pending even four years later just as in brown


either as an independent argument that he should have under thirty five fifty three a the need to avoid a more disparity should have addressed the party's argument under carter that hill year was the proper what you need to


i'm still not sure why information that may be construed against your client becomes objectionable for that reason alone that's what i'm having trouble with i think it's different than hard data that you might see when you look at you know the center for


relies on that field manual to establish that it was and that the interview first occurred on may thirty first two thousand and six at that was first interview so matter for yes for his status


because i'm not it's not crime it would be properly counted no it wouldn't our case when he was sentenced it would be properly counted and it would have been improperly counted because we have now clarified it


as we don't have any facts in the p s r about exactly what he did to commit involuntary manslaughter it probably fail under the force clause and that's why it was counted to suppress the predicate because without


feels that way but i believe in this case it is true because all of the activity in this case occurred within the state of north carolina now since when has that mattered since the the the truck in the do and the


and so you have these two different modes if you have these two different programs but each is geared to the particular needs of a certain


during mister during mister harris a second revocation hearing the parties acknowledged on the record that we were referring with this that sentence was referring to the original term


he does not have to say oh i'm going to get a job don't worry i'm going to get out i'm going to go to work it's it's it's just a sort of childlike thinking that i've got to show


conviction you know we had evidence showing mr sears he brought up evidence showing that all of the records of the conviction had been destroyed and at least one person's recollection one person's note about the age of the victim differed from is a bad one forty eight


record would have been absolutely clear if the problem really focused from a as i wasn't trial counsel in terms of drafting of the assignment of era if the district court had