the knowledge alone of the officials and many of the officials involved in these applications were aware of of mr jeffries prior protected activity but jones versus bernanke he says that's not enough by itself to get you on to pass summary judgment


governments of thank you to the government for fully crediting my cooperation his conduct during the assault which was largely undisputed i believe in which he testified to at trial so there was no dispute about what he did during this assault that he was the leader that


that no i've never written a brief for i spent four pages outlining when is lying under oath admittedly lying under oath and the o j saying he's not trustworthy but we have one


the existence of my claim in which case my my claim cannot be extinguished on the basis of publication notice alone and that that's what you see in the that's the warning sort of given in this court's opinion freeman in


two years ok that's specifically in the statute it didn't provide that deadline for newly listed boone's ok so according to petitioners there is a deadline but it said two years


juror that the least i could say is that this is very confusing to me i don't know what they're arguing except i can convict him if he committed this during a felony the jury was truly told innumerable times that mehlis


consider it could go back up to one hundred forty months well i don't i don't think it's that bad but but i think there would be a change in his position and so there is some prejudice to him if he sent


right did that happen in actuality no but that's what the standard that we look at when we're looking at the contract language right so i think it unconscionable that he and i can address procedural and substantive unconsciously now ask


also case and the oh i g report anough to publicly disclose was it substantially similar it's the cases are quite clear on this issue and the test i think just by being correct my test is a very different case the cases that are on point are


he never swung at the officer you just said it was undisputed that he was advancing walking and that's very important he never ran or charge for raised it over his head or held it with two hands or swung it or


three people perceiving this event of the question as what a reasonable officer what reasonable rights are and when you have someone coming at you with a club type stick i think a reasonable officer could feel threatened and we keep going back to the severity of the crime just record it said it was a very


where in the other precautions the courts the court set out that we need to take so we need to bifurcate the testimony for instance you should buy a ticket testament you should not allow the witness to speculate or testify to hearsay and absent cautionary action which did not happen


some time later i don't know i don't know if there was room for him to these are these are different people it's a different culture it's they they have been traumatized by what


back in two years and show that he still married show that the marriage was still not fraudulent that's it that's enough of a safeguard that that these people should be given the benefit of the doubt and by your standard they should never be questioned in the first


then in a whirlwind i think it to ten day trip met each other and got married and i don't see what's the matter with that i mean in our culture it's customary to have love and courtship and marriage and that sort of thing a lot of cultures


bringing the toyota to a complete stop humphrey estimated the speed of the toyota to be thirty five to forty mph before it stopped completely humphrey had to slam on the brakes to his car due to this action and


tell you your honor the way the complaint is required to be written the elements of a complaint for due process hearing is that the parent must describe the nature of the problem the nature of the problem


period of time so it's a time that he's spent in custody in custody pre sentencing on this on this case correct and the way he is


saying you think counsel that before you can have a forever hearing where the defendant knowingly waves his rights you have to complete sentencing you really have to know everything that's


two and a half minutes unless the court has any further questions on the sentencing point like to briefly touch on the legality of the search the consent issue was fully briefed i'll quickly just get to that the probation search we're talking reasonable suspicion


believe it's been waived but if your court doesn't think it's waived it's completely harmless exhibit three a one way puts the lie to any ad which it's one of the audio recordings puts the lie to any idea that there's any innocent


taylor says unlawful or unprivileged entry into or remaining in those are actually not the exact same words they're very similar but of course you have to look at case law and statutes to find out what these words mean you can't just assume


making the argument you're making but as the rig is currently written and as it's being interpreted doesn't that account for slight differences in the way certain positions are carried a slight difference is that we are way at the other end of the


and there is no interference with any state law so all in the enemies who is distinguishable in all of those ways which are some of the ways in which richardson distinguished enemies here


o's that are also plant pass that's correct it does not at this point do that now and it could not do so should the age of some point make a separate determination that one of these regulated


an injunction to the firm of johnson to allow that to happen mr which chance to move to dissolve the corporation and not of the arizona corporations act in a close corporation like this there's an opportunity for the other party rather than just dissolve


still say that if you take a picture of someone under eighteen that you know if that's considered child pornography but but that doesn't hold again in consensual cases it makes perfect sense in cases in which there is no relationship and there


fourth amendment which says only that warrants be issued upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation there is no dispute in this case that trooper cooper was placed under oath there's no dispute that he then gave


court's review then the defendant still converted a trade secret so it's much like a felon in the next meeting for excuse me based on the remaining four or if the core on review finds that it was


test for my overuse that there is and but it's not x rays and it's not m r i is what they've have is trigger point tests they've got a lot of it is an observational and over the course of time seeing that


then let's take conversion why isn't why isn't that within the ambit of these three different phrases in connection with that i mean what he said out of that well the fact


credit swaps so i think that case simply has nothing to say has no bearing on what is alleged here as those allegations are applied to this very straightforward and clear exclusion has slightly different question


case that's going to be governed by the statutory standards in fact development the way the district court handles cases on the merits and it's also a case that's going to be governed by the u s supreme court's procedural default law under


they were getting


its factual determination determines that there's only one reasonable expectation for the contract one of the problems with a clearly erroneous standard of review when you have a contract interpretation


every turn this appeal raises eight instances of such over race with the court's permission i plan to focus today on the profiling character evidence in


says that in the case of an alien who's been placed in a deportation proceeding which your two clients have the immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction how to get around that because he's arriving alien because


to the union so we submit the district court once again got its ruling wrong and we ask this court to again reinstate a peals action in the few minutes that i have available this afternoon without intending to abandon any of the other arguments made in


if the union can considers that to be important and it keeps mentioning it that is material disputed fact and indeed if you look at the district court's order granting summary judgment i believe it's footnote three it recognizes that the disputed issue and if


sentenced for receipt or possession the district court procedurally erred by sentencing mr carlson for receipt and not possession and in this regard it's undisputed that possession is a lesser included offense of receipt under davenport and mackel murray as we've


well had the district court stop there and said you know i'm i'm concerned about the draconian mandatory sentences and i agree with the judges have expressed that view i don't think the defense would really have anything to talk about but but i think the


appropriate use of these documents and like judge leighton actually referred to one of those e mails when he said i think that the government counsel has set out a good understanding of this that actually incidentally although it's a bit of a tangent is why this does not fall within the


my in my last ten seconds i'll just make one point which i haven't heard yet which is that this is an essential project to national security in the navy had limited options for it so what the navy did was make a full analysis and disclose as much as it responsibly could disclose


morgan case the court said i don't think you need us as a novelist perry for a first for this sort of thing because the question is what was motivating the terminations and the rather


elements fraud the intent to harm someone the actual infliction of more than to minimize harm against someone or an action against a protected class a victim none of those elements is present here


closer look at the record i would submit that the knife reference was actually to the other three defendants and not to mr hernandez gonzales as his abstract of judgment only refer to a billy club i'd like to move now very briefly your honour's to the modified categorical


basis for an aggravated felony terminations the supreme court found that these are all low level marijuana offenses that the what about the sale didn't moncrief explicitly carve out sale


and they said that they were creating a sham corporation with zeal by license because they hadn't filed by license and it had just been filed in two thousand and fourteen in an effort to create


on the filing showed that it was the be the effective date not the date of the filing but the effective date was two thousand and eight to correct the error of non filing because the name


directing him to appear and none of that was true but that was not after the case was dismissed with prejudice the case was dismissed with prejudice on june sixth and then the sanctions hearing was august second


they first presented allen as a gang member before the south side of trial ok who well my concern is that you're saying that testimony was presented at trial so you're not saying


you have to put some evidence and what evidence did you put into show a tribal issue principally we have the c h p photos which show the path of this vehicle in the accident the tree strike how it continued in a straight line


appeal my colleague richard bush who buys from a separate firm and represent defendant self pity bone and his music publishing company is going to argue the attorney's fees and like to reserve five minutes for mr bush to argue


we can make the determination the district court can listen to the two works and find that the taking was only de minimus and that's been done in many courts we've seen that if the cases are cited in a in our brief i


political opinion for three reasons first the court noticed pointed out that he had been interrogated regarding the whereabouts of a suspected terrorist in a muslim separatists secondly he was asked to disclose the identities of muslim terrorists and reveal information


infraction and there's no case that we're aware of that says that you can justify an arrest for cocaine possession and being under the influence because an officer


the secondary infringement is this declaration that there was no use in us then they moved to dismiss the trial be six right correct natalie and the contributory issues but


straight infringement you want us to affirm the district court's ruling on twelve b six on the contributory infringement and vicarious vets correct your honor there are they are two different questions should i think i believe with all due respect to


just purely for an activity to go through discovery to resolve something it should be resolved right in the beginning but i thank you i'm


truly bring the facts of that case i realize there's a public policy an expeditious a completion of cases but we can't forget that those kids are entitled to their rights under idea individuals with


to say no that crime is not a particularly serious crime and therefore the bar doesn't apply would we not yes that would be a legal determination which under twelve to forty two a to the right we get to make yes his argument as a legal matter is that he wasn't


speeches right right so there would be material agree with you there but a failure to remember or explain i don't think is grounds for an adverse credibility find maybe it's grounds for insufficiency


his statement in front of him in armenian while he was questioned about he says he was hospitalized sometimes for four days sometimes for a week and on page two thirty seven he says more than a week the


yes your honor in spite of his efforts at that point he needs to be doing two things at once not waiting you need to be working up his asylum application and waiting for the decision on his visa extension so you don't


the agreement in two thousand and five but we were to read the rest of what he asserts as saying but i wasn't an employer before two thousand and five then the provision you're referring to doesn't


with the investigator right i don't believe now that declaration is not clear how far can so talk to them but it is clear well that what it's clear is that counsel's investigator talked to these


failed or chose not to address a ground that was pivotal in the case as well addressing the three points one by one number one was that the threats did not rise to the level indicated in limb and as such the


of doing it and the board has not actually analyzed the daily first two pages from the transcript which is basically the three incidents that she described and the one incident in one thousand nine hundred seventy there is no analysis of it as far as the


the evidence to support the trademark infringement claim if the case went back down could include as you are knows anything that is put forward as we're just at the motion to dismiss level right so that was what was planned i mean my sense of


bring out in the second amount of complaint bring it specific and it sure can't be the name of a saint or a figure of a saint the only unique element turns out to be the bullet design that's unique for purposes of copyright


even if we disagree with its preemption ruling we should we could affirm on a ground not addressed by the district court is your argument


i'm having such a hard time with the government's position your position is that's totally or legally irrelevant right because the people who head the legal status of the twenty two thousand people with legal status under the sea and i could be removed the day after the


eleventh circuit would have reached a different result with the same case the their decisions make that clear and an alien can't just because the u


that's if it's ok to say they'll never get the money back what's the difference or anything the victims will never get the money back and saying this defendant will never be able to pay them back that those two are the same right no one else is going to give them the money back the difference is he's saying it's a factor that aggravates the sentence he cannot say


to substantive california law in order to determine as a matter of substance whether or not an aider and abettor is punishable as a principle and whether given that fact whether that is sufficient


why not just get it right and just send it back down and apply the right standard in a might be the same result and the case is over or maybe there's a relief granted but why not just do that in this case you


subdivisions not to these three subdivisions here but it does show that oregon views the age as an essential aspect to establish what level of punishment is appropriate as far as the three subdivisions here we know from the perkins


come comprehensive explanation of basically who through this is a question of who's who this case resolved resolves around who are his parents the pivotal question beyond his identity beyond


heterosexual hiv positive individual from mexico who provided credible testimony that he feared harm if you're talking make an express credibility determine if he did not find him not credible i don't believe he made an express finding leases with


and i think because of the voluminous nature of the records in the briefing the essence of this issue gets a little muddy and gets a little lost this is really due process issue it's a broad claim that this evidence that was


a fair trial because the petitioners husband for health reasons was excused from testifying and all the testimony that


showing and you're saying on the motion to reopen i guess that sure you can show asylum and cat i guess you know it's a whole yes what's the basis upon which


that because of the family being attacked by the last say toss and because the government is essentially let's say just comes in and ask them questions


will you come down and take a polygraph and she said she demand she stands firm and says i will not take a polygraph without my attorney there's no problem with letting her talk to her lawyer and being in the house for the


sixth he visited the restaurant we edited the record to eliminate the date of the roll of insight you read something you read january as the date of his inspection or summit


supreme court case lowball offers to settle would be admissible against travelers nothing the mill houses would have to say would be about what to how they value the tort claim would be relevant to the benefits cause of actions i'm fairly comfortable i did not say that


distinguishing feature the council's making between the mediation the judge said that mediation may well be admissible but that his position was and he was clear trying to made clear that the


all trying to suggest that those articles were going to be evidence in fact i have to simply want to to provide those just so that the court could know you know what's in the public realm of the time which is i think miscible within and


talk in circles which we need some specifics doesn't really apply here we don't know the facts of the case we don't know why these other folks were well off we have instances in our court system where the government simply hasn't proven its case and we


good morning to peta city attorney matthew sure about behalf of the city of los angeles that you animal control officers may it please the court i'd like to just start where opposing counsel left off which is with the par hand case i just want to highlight that that case in the cascine case and several of the others that we


veterinarian here needed to be able to evaluate the situation under par hand under kassim these cases that deal with a situation where error is not high highly likely because we're involving a veterinarian or


reopen at any time if he has been removed in abstention and demonstrates he did not receive proper notice of the hearing in which the agency issued the order of removal so here


defense that well could a reasonable officer in his mind mistakenly believe he was not using excessive force of that word defense then i can see a jury question but that's not the situation here and


likely than not that he would be subjected to torture and this court's review dictates that there needs to be sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that that would be the case and once you


be such a consideration the i j a simply says and this is page six hundred and ten dollars of the certified administrative record that problems still exist and there are still human rights violations being committed but at


mechanisms to try to get a good assessment of interstate revenues


the the new case and it reversed and vacated the sentence in the old case but affirmed in the new one ok that would be my position under specially because of the cross appeal role


even if this error is corrected before the district court the only way you get there is by changing the sentence on the substantive count that that's right if that's right and i think


honor they have to watch or at least their counsel knows that they have to watch what claims they are actually being filed because those claims made change what they need to pay through their plan to perform it in


on the california that left after the st motion dismiss that it became well this isn't really about trying to hurt them a competitor this was about trying to hurt you ha a plan and most recently


proximity all of that would encompass everything that judge mosman considered ultimately though i think where this case breaks down with pimento lopez is that pimentel lopez simply did not involve a case that had different


judge mosman had the discretion to do precisely what he did here which is to determine the actual drug quantity in this case by a preponderance of the evidence and there's been no suggestion by the defense that in fact there was any factual problem with judge mosman


includes manners it includes music it includes a little whole bunch of things that we would not considered to be property under the n h p a they're not places so the two lists are not equivalent so what plaintiffs


included even the places now we don't think that makes any sense because obviously japan does have some items on their list that correspond to our lists we simply say that the reasonable way of reading the plain language of the statute is you take our list of


for our national register of historic places that apply to the places on our list japan may have their own criteria that are very different than our criteria but we're just saying for purposes of the statute it's a statute about culturally and historically important


so therefore why are we looking at that at the strength of that evidence as to the question i'm sort of questioning the standard i don't understand because the whole premise has to be that the jury could just believe some or all of the et


correct your honor if i could just introduce myself my name is elizabeth holmes i may please the court i represent conservation congress i'm from blue river law i will also just add this is my st oral argument ever so apologies


what they saw but there's always the argument that people think they see something that's not quite what they see but now we've labeled these agents as experts and counter surveillance and the danger is that they were actually able


all independently obliged not to release p r i and therefore if they do release piet it's not a question of whether there is an agent immunity or whether it's done at another defendant's be hast it is did


indefinite suspension pending an investigation of alleged misconduct that out of creating this hurdle for my client to get notice amounts to a legal interference it's


circumstances because we have in the record the fact that basic only deals with us in the way they would have no knowledge of his employment status in terms of being on suspension pending investigation or possibly under


and again i think looking at this case with the standard of review that the court has whether any rational jerk a conviction of the circumstances i think even if the court found that there could be a reasonable inference


unusual circumstances of this case in that it wasn't an arrest and it wasn't an investigatory stop which are the standard use of force scenarios the jury instructions do accurately state the law so i think it has to be analyzed


would require a trial within a trial because as i've stated several times the facts are in dispute we would have had to call an entirely new set of witnesses in fact other than the judge and possibly the clerk you know it was a different court


plaintiff cannot simply want to gather different defendants and alleges that everyone did everything but that's exactly what did in this case the central allegation is that these individuals knew about going problems and did nothing to fix


like to hit briefly on a couple of questions a couple of issues that mr claus brought up the st being this question of qualified immunity and whether or not the pat down


we thought we were enforcing against the one to vigil who didn't commit hi this is judge progress and i thought i made it clear that i was talking abstract you know if that didn't come through that was my intention we're talking hypothetically at least


an agreement so cut the tort category is everything else non contract and when we look at the banks quiet title claim we can see right in the face of the title of it it is imposed by statute even title if


much for your argument thank you your honor i have some time yes i want to address it's not a false dichotomy is the dichotomy that congress put in place its tort or contract there is no other dichotomy and when we look at


stopped the moment he moved out in domestic violence situations that's often not true she didn't say that we have no contact in fact she said i've been continuously under this threat that should be enough for the instruction to go to the jury and support the evidence and as we are going in the briefing cumulative error


the legal question simply to reverse the summary judgment normally one would say reverse and remand for further consideration in light of the correct standard that we respectfully submit that we submitted a and they


court vacated on other grounds but it is clear there's a triable issue of fact of whether that letter in the context of the accommodations and stroke and disabilities that the air force was aware of was


versus gordon which arose under the marine mammal protection act in that case despite a statutory timetable the very strict statutory time table requiring the agency to issue a permit within a given time and despite the agency's


secretary did have the discretion over this project to consider whether environmental impacts meant it shouldn't go forward at all or should only go forward in some different form the secretary under took that analysis and that analysis the


seeks to hold defendants liable without pleading lost causation economic loss requires a plausible explanation of how he could have gotten more money for his shares which he simply can't do any one dollar of these ground each thoroughly


they filed their motion for certification before we could do that motion that's all and so we raised the issue the issue is clearly going to be have to be decided at some point and it is clearly a question of law and not of no question that is there anything was there in the district court on


two defendants so to that extent i think that my parents is almost unnecessary and i don't but among certain whether there are any questions about my involvement in that appeal i have very little information about two thousand eight hundred and ten three but want to make a couple of points


immunity is the rule that's clear in the arizona constitution and its decisions interpretating stone and its later cases and frankly i don't think that there's any reason why stone or immunity should apply only to tort


we essentially if you step back the large larger picture here is one of effectively a coup a corporate takeover by the volunteers many of them


the indians exercising their option once jessica jackson came to them and made the request if the government was going to put the property into trust and accept the deed than they should have said they were they repeatedly told her yes we're going to take the


documents whatever the case may be is that a ground for a court of appeals to force a district court to


on both sides but at the end of the day you know the department can only put the department of interior can only take trust according to the statutes that are out there and there are certain requirements there are need needed to take that into trust


decided and were briefed and cited to the district court in the rule sixty motion the court saw those factors all the henson factors and actually what it did was it decided to go off on a basis not completely


consistent with those factors and it ruled that the factors that it found significant were things like judicial stoppel article three grounds grounds that if they were taken to their logical extension really


with respect to the henson analysis itself really the factor that i think the defendants have articulated is one that can be considered by this court and it goes back to what i said at the beginning they say wait a minute we have an expectation of finality here


arguments a carbon copy of the judgment that was entered back in two thousand and thirteen and under the merger doctrine that new judgment all prior orders are merged into that judgment including the order denying the


before you can do it right or is it your position that because it requires iraq it orders to be sent it's in a lot more i think there's several reason why why it ares i mean it certainly bars post conviction counsel from any investigation because the time limit it's


would have to give way if there were good cause but the time limit for example the ten day time limit for example failure to comply with some of those components of the rule i can understand that a very strong argument that those parts of the rule would have to give way in light of


rule as applied and i can a lot of arizona lawyers in the courtroom but this is what always happens at the end of jury trials here the judge says to the jury you don't have to talk to the defense lawyers or the lawyers but if you want


whatsoever has ever gone about saying that anybody in that room made a decision based on racial bias this is rather unique circumstance as your friend points out the only capital case in the united states


i'm only aware of child pornography cases for in the lawrence that have been unsealed in my understanding of this case research involved i imagine it could be used to apprehend criminals who are hiding their identities through and on and eyes in technology which


start today by discussing each of these questions in the context of mr two bills projected job transfer applications turning first to the catch twenty two issue that was created by i b m and indorsed by the district


incentive to make all of those arguments at that time to truly is concerned with the fairness hounslow


missionary work the same wore it except that it rather than someone else be able to determine he did that were he took that upon himself


afterwards he was a missionary working abroad with the same material interests and the same authentic pull from god claiming citizenship and except when he was asked these questions and it seems


the night supervisor but that other people were called including mr al fairies for instance to cover for him because things would come up that needed to be done but mr roach it was not bear to do his work again as your honor stated the jury


march well had assembled the raising photographs of people who the police believed to be associated with the franklin hill giants so this is a chrissy ger that's a range by law enforcement in terms of the united states supreme court


and this is it somewhere within appendix two ninety three to two ninety eight trial counsel agreed that mark tells trial testimony recounting harrison statements walker and helped prosecution she


a blatantly improper procedure and it increases the risk that someone will be falsely identified even if not specifically pointing to the defendant and because of that it should be found suggestive


alternately a case has stayed here and now there were no exigent circumstances warranted them going into the apartment once they heard the footsteps and the guy


they couldn't stop at that rate of


ari who is the global quality assurance manager for bass can appendix at one twenty two three one twenty five describes her regular communication with alvin rose regarding the ice cream samples that help and rose was required to send in knesset use its every


shape or for the united states as with respect to the lesser included offense instruction this course cases make abundantly clear that plain error review applies here the courts cases and rule thirty


what triggers the excess carious obligation at that point because as i look at it what we have here i can't figure out what would predict your company's obligation to actually step up to the plate and


rico is constitutionally a territory and can be treated differently as a territory in that case they found that it was valid because these families these residents did not contribute directly into the treasury and that treating puerto rico as


briefly on the facts of this case since it is senseless to spin our wheels and discuss the retroactivity or even the constitutionality of the adjustment role of fence if it's going to


parker wrote out a statement for martin in martin's voice in third person i then martin's voice and rode away on the statement that her purpose in doing that was that martin did not speak or read english very well


know there's no evidence that there he was in front there's no evidence that he was behind anyone either well how could the jury then conclude he was in front of the jury could reasonably conclude that there was a risk that not all of them would make it out that some of them would be caught first that no person


done that much the problem is you go back to the neuron decision from this court and you look at why did this court say in that case which was not a false claim that case was a civil rico case that's right it wasn't in the questions for


testimony for off label promotion cases you're buying it for the partner of justice too and so that's something to keep in mind perhaps as to the quality of the data that we relied on that and he i data that's the same


which she said what she really is meaning in my view is less a open question that the supreme court is going to the thigh and more of the way the second circuit looked at and it which was the notion of not foreclosing this argument


rule that johnson announced has to do with judicial characterizations of risk is not a problem for the nine twenty four c argument were the jury decided the level of risk


at all and again i also appreciate the question that we're not dealing with sort of obama merits assessment but my opponent seems to think that it's sort of a fait accompli that johnson invalidates the residual but when you say you you you don't think it it necessarily is


puerto rico view on this if you continue further down in parts seen out force this is not what the defendant was convicted under and this is not it is a defensible statute so we're not arguing that that c is relevant for the purposes of


thank you thank you to the robbery issue i would like to point out a couple of things to credit cremona as address one seventy three robbery now one of the robbery and under a prior


pharaoh officer exercises control over the car by giving it inconsistent with any procedure inconsistent with any right as a police officer to be to company in fact no school to provide the plaintiff of his


officer would have been mistakenly led to believe that the position was one not protected idea or run it the way that it is it is yeah but when we go


element or the credibility or accuracy of any evidence the government anticipates introducing in his case in chief i don't think it applies to either one of them as clairmont has testified she didn't know anything about the date of the incident it's completely superfluous


rests on the nature of the relationship between the insider and mcveigh it rests on whether or not those two shared a relationship of trust and confidence that was legally binding


distracting immediate annoying but that is an order of magnitude different it's different than having a protester down the street yelling directly at you trying to engage you in conversation personally while you're trying to engage with a health care provider that simply a completely


followed the acura from their peers and certainly was not required to bring you his motion to suppress after trial he could have done so and that he did not i would say it just was because there was no for the record to develop in this


stay in his out of that background if you get this august two thousand a degree which is designed to send devise him to go out and do exactly what he did well he was threatening to leave in two


a remarked that the petitioner gave two different explanations for why the abuse began when stating that it was because she burns and being in the otherwise stating it was because of jealousy but this inconsistency does not appear in the record


only place on the reservation where you can fish is within the mains the waters of the main stem again you don't need any of the indian canons you simply apply the supreme court tried and true method of ordinary


penobscot nation encompass the river they have the river they have lands on both sides of the river stretching six miles out sixty miles in either direction in seven hundred and ninety six and in the eight hundred and eighteen treaties and those treaties are printed in the addendum to our


modified sentence of one hundred and twenty months on that count and what the purpose of that mandate was unequivocal as this court wrote in santiago ressa comparable case where a defendant attempted to raise a johnson claim following


are being argued and yet you know that labeling quid pro quo never appears in the brief even your client appearing pro se doesn't use that language but it does seem to me that


different she also didn't know how often she was going to be encountering in my day to day basis she was principally concerned with advancing her career this was a dream job for her it was what she had trained for back in china


thai girl conversation it does not know it's and that's a very significant point he does say that the discussion was entirely professional and he was principally concerned about what were her reasons for leaving her then


skinny financial advisor who would never been in jail before and this one there were problems with my defense i don't suggest otherwise but it was a legitimate defense and


and that he agreed that you should go forward nonetheless and make these are guns i will confess to the court that i've had a great deal of difficulty getting in touch with my courage but i feel confident in saying i'm sorry the answer then


as and it's cleared ninety eight percent of the force virtually all of the cohesion officers and virtually all of the african americans of hispanic officers have been cleared by this test so


in and and this is word for word the patent instruction do you know or can i believe so i'm happy to double check on that if it turns out that there's a difference to submit any ha on that point but my understanding is this is all directly from the model jury instructions for the first circuit


a convicted felon so i have to have knowledge of that entire crime since that's the predicate and then it says you must have provided assistance well seeking to accomplish it


engage in this pattern of breaking off a relationship massachusetts to the extent they've addressed that have said there is no such street so if the insurance company even if there had been a suit filed with the insurance company most like it would have done would be to come


fortier was simply using a flashlight feature it simply didn't line up with the actual record videos and couldn't evidence regarding catalog and storage also show into it for purposes of production yes your honor and that's why the


of those files deciding they weren't worth keeping which goes to his intent that he did want to keep the other ones either because they were better shots or the contact content he had intended to create on the admissibility standards and the


later what does that broad language is a very very broad reservation of rights what would it cover and the government's feel it's got these types of motions looking at the document as a whole without just that that


the truck court misunderstood that the l c does not qualify as a provider of the home benefit because it excludes twenty four hour care facility i think that's wrong the definition of home does include peel t


in the poem and i sorry i can't i can't go quote you the brief but i can quote you policy you know i'm reading from the policy we will pay benefits when you require home and community based care or hospice services community


for letting a plea offer expire while he was out at the b o p for an evaluation is that correct that is correct john and that's this is so so what what is there more than one playoff are there seems to be


medication what the doctor actually said was that if there was a change in medication somewhere down the road that might be a reason to have him re evaluate it but there is nothing in that evaluation that says he his


significant question in the case has to do with the court giving more why to the government mental health experts opinions as opposed to


time when this issue rings hollow too because she's already implemented those procedures right she's already limited his cross i don't know what is the meal what is helping by taking that


findings in the court can the can make in the board has to review implicit findings for clear air as well so i read an implicit finding is that necessary finding of hers in order to reach the conclusion however to the extent that that that was not clear that


no it's just an i mean well yes to me thinking no we have if you had retained if you had retained the cash deposits according to the paragraph or two would then if those were in your hands then we wouldn't be here they you that would have been your


the number of times you've said quality and try could see you pausing to try to remember which is which and it's kind of confusing is it is confusing but there's nothing wrong with that i mean the rascal law it's clear parties have the right and


trustee that record was attached to their complaint the information that was the basis of this case was provided before the adversarial proceeding was filed granted the client didn't found them into schedule till february one


judgement as a matter of law taking everything most favorable i'd like to emphasize this it's not only the conflict of evidence but it's also the conflict of interpretations of the agreements you'll see that we have competing interpretations of the non disparagement and the


was not went back to the jury but i thought mr marsh are green with that i'm just asking you where we can is there something written down from the district court that explains how this is handled or is this just something that was


on that point and i think the certainly the immigration judge was very deferential to your client on credibility issues and i think there are if you were not reviewing the credibility issues i understand that but i would say that based on the record the


putting himself at risk and expressing a voice about the ongoing claims or harm that a lot of the questions are suffering in bangladesh and that's one of the reasons as a trier


reading from the proposed instruction to the uniform and it's i think forbade him i know there i know that that was really the issue by not understanding well we'll


ruling on the moon rule fifty motion to dismiss so the rule the court's findings were as follows any claim accruing before december st of two thousand and ten is prima fascia a barred by the statute of limitations


so the jury was left with a very confusing and almost impossible situation all they heard was this three hundred and fifty six thousand dollars in damages which was the amount of the one hundred and fifty thousand dollars


supplants have final say over whether to accept the proposed rate but that argument is foreclosed by the undisputed facts in this case it's undisputed and you can look at the contract


act well the state law though enlarges it in the sense that it says you can go to a district other than where you live and if the federal law requires transportation from home to school


our point really here is that the parent chose this as an option and as a result because i d e a does not require transportation to the open unrolled school district she wasn't entitled


matter because his evaluate his media evaluations occurred every year in net out so that wasn't going to change but the other way he created it is by his behavior the behavior that was problematic didn't occur until after his most recent evaluation in


to hit the human resources reading in april of two thousand and sixteen and again we're talking about somebody who is a high level manager in the plant who's dating a production level employee who goes in and makes another production employee feel like she's in


and there simply isn't any evidence of retaliation regardless of which standard the court uses i appreciate your time thank you


advice and what she had instructed d her adviser and do which ultimately induced harris to enter into his plea of guilty but then also you have the p c r counsel that you have to look at that when the initial timely


so there are serious factual problems prepares allegations in his petition that would prevent this for from ruling on any of those issues in his favor and would prevent the district court from granting further proceedings on his claims


time thank you thank you


companies were here from vermont thank you your honor and may please the court south carolina law imposes a duty to warn and manufacturers that have either actual


present in the district or a summary judgment that that's not what i understood you to be saying is is there any reason to be concerned that the district court didn't spend a lot of time explaining this on that end and as to the maybe i'm getting your


two i think the district court found that there was maybe a change in circumstance at that point that would change the level of resistance that shelton was but isn't it undisputed that he was still turtled as they say when


under rule ninety i would like to reserve the balance of my time for a bottle


policyholder the only reason these rates will only be adjusted for changes with projected mortality and we contend that means nothing else but the policy also says that the rates for each year are based on the insurance age


associated with it and what apex oil makes clear is that it is the right of payment to the plane or does it say that there's a right to payment correct it does not say that but is all of us crowd of sticking point


the there's a jury question still remains in coker out of the view of the camera the party story different the parties stories differed immensely the officer stay with us a coke case in your brood it is in their


to find and hear mr brown was not on any notice until he was at miss gym or since hearing and in fact mr brown himself was not even in the courtroom when the evidence around any of the other witnesses came out about the young


what i heard as to the timing of the destruction is that we should believe the discovery response it's representation that there were no recordings even though we know those discovery responses were false in other respects and


posters who are being solicited either induced or paid now that all nurses hides under a cloak of of claim st amendment


rights and then maty so we don't know we don't have direct evidence we only have circumstantial evidence but the pleading stage the standard doesn't require that we have to show


into all of the absent class members and workers he's going to get an individualized analysis he's doing it in order to program a computer doesn't make the rule that's being used to try to decide this case


in central sticks the court said he has traditionally remained a warehouseman and the chronic amendment has never applied to him because of the difference


and hits a stop train that was where it shouldn't be those folks were trying to get on buckled from their from their seat belts but because the brakes had been hit everything had locked up and they couldn't get out


pricing practices in patent practices i'd like to address the pricing practices st these are the fundamental elements on which there's been a failure of proof by in line st and again i'll say on the competition that in that that is enough to sink the in line ship here


the nd claim is the mills claim and i'll talk a little bit about the mature missouri jury instruction on the mills claim and then get a little bit into the case along the way the missouri jury instruction works is as we st discussed the jury must find an


please the court my name is james caan i represent the appellant's including carol williams in this matter this court or i should i should i should add i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal this court should reverse the district court's grant of summary


waivers and it that because it didn't uniformly do it it did it based on the nature of the conviction of the crime so some section one thousand grams are worse than others i don't i don't think there's a standard for that if i


mailing case which is from from again judge hansen in the northern district of iowa he said notice was not necessary he said it wasn't necessary for a very important reason that the person who has been through a


reasonable that where it ended up going to panix a to the very an appendix appendix to the very part of the very regulations that it interprets is that reasonable is that forseeable and our answer is yes in fact


for law enforcement to figure out where people are employed if they have a number they had a name


and that's not your best point right no no no but it was i believe a cs first identify second type of arrangement here i mean they didn't know who is driving so they just go ahead and stop them i mean you know


government's evidence which included evidence regarding a two thousand and thirteen transaction in which miss davis participated and the two thousand and fourteen transaction that miss davis participated in allow davis the


are number of negligent acts that are completely there they're related but tangential to the act of shooting so in other words did he properly act as a pool monitor on the day of the quote on the day of the shooting by the


code that statute exists it's a criminal statute which provides that by by willfully failing to pay over taxes that are owed to the united states one can be criminally prosecuted and if you follow the logic of a stablish in alter ego anomaly


you can't selectively assert the fifth amendment right so you know for instance lois lerner when she testified before congress there was a whole big hoopla over whether or not she waived the fifth because she made an opening statement there was talk of you know holding her in criminal contempt and so


and it's my privilege to be here this morning on appeal representing the united states i should mention i'm joined of counsel table this morning by my colleagues assistant u s attorney andrew winter who is also on the brief and on the trial team


disregard one can provide money one can provide communications facilities one can provide transportation one can provide all sorts of things the defendants in this case were charged with conspiring to provide themselves personnel


conspired to join either side of that without a band with that of that they have been entitled to a combatant immunity defense i am not at all familiar with the with the situation in south sudan but i would say who thinks on the


to property but it doesn't then extend to every potential act of injustice and discrimination that does not fall within the thirteenth


and a way that is generally not seen in jury in the jury instruction arena that when character evidence was introduced that the district court must give this instruction and facts court's frequently reversed even under plain error review for the


without special software they were nonetheless evidence of prior possession of child pornography the court cited united states versus reed where the court found the presence of child pornography in inaccessible orphan


abuse so you make the particular finding this conviction is is related to sexual assault which is what the modifier says any of these offenses have to be related to sexual abuse in mccoy


if that is the case that this distinction authority the split of the florida shows that this is an issue of fact for the jury to determine what exactly to the house market do or not do and that was something in the spring that the district court


in paragraph twenty nine the infusion of cash into an estate typically results in a benefit to the estate but this is not a typical case in a cash infusion such as proposed here does not always significant


different events to get coverage for one i mean if it's excluded from wanted to excluded it's excluded for all


maybe a stronger urging taken over is what they were trying to argue that's what was prejudicial i've been well into my rebuttal time and thank you very well ms collins will hear from you for the government


its hands and waited and it was more than a year after the grievance the courier that they actually brought a demand for arbitration and then about another five months before they brought their case what the union wants to do is to be given this ability to say this is when the statute


the collective bargaining agreement provide that arbitration must be instituted within a specific time period the expiration of this period combined with employer failure to take any position with respect arbitration or it constitutes employers unequivocal refusal to arbitrate this


relate specifically to both the pre term anation due process claim the post terminations to process claim and dr gronow was substantive due process


record to include the transcript from the earlier suppression hearing because it's as you pointed out it's not a part of this record it is extra judicial and in fact it's not really hearsay either because what it is


this court established in mcdonough which looks at the history of frequent suspicious accesses that word was notably left out from the argument you just heard that's the key here really in looking at


our order of trial and i and i think we sent an email saying he wouldn't be coming live i'd be used in the deposition and that's when they objected and they waited to file something told three thirty seven pm


expose the size of the benefit that he received the magnitude of that benefit from the earlier alexion fraud deal and of course that was the deal that took place in the wake in the immediate aftermath of his


tested and despite all of the other actions that mr sharp took in this case i see him running short on time so our serve the rest of it for a bottle


asked sharpe whether he believed there was a high probability that the substances were controlled substances are analogs the the specific question asked was whether it was subject to regular regulation under federal drug laws and so


rod the fact of the officers statements i think they can somewhat be attacked as to their credibility a day or two after the shooting the officers get all the officers gathered


silence she didn't do anything and all the cases that both the government i've decided on they complied consent there is act you're either verbal inviting them or there are some affirmative act as i call it my brief the opening the door and stepping back theme


moment that as i read the record the parole officer authorized to the parole search at that point he did not have there was no officer had any reasonable suspicion to believe that mr


because at that point about this case correct in the print current context counsel at the time was inquiring about the relationship between mr abraham and the government he had made motions for production of documentation or information that was turned away and


she still refused to move in with him and was living with a cousin at that point past that we have formal leases executed for two years and five months of what was a three year and five month marriage


documentation to show that and then also as far as fair lifestyles more concerned she had opened a credit line with this family friend and she bought a car with him and the as far shared assets are


the record is very clear that as a last did not review those documents except for reviewing him for a loan modification which was a hold on you say you think the eighty dollars are actual damages but


more than plausible for the supreme court to rule that way and survive the review on a plausible standard your honor or i you know the language yes your honor the


that's not part of that's not part of the statute well what about the charge code what can can the court use the charge code to link that up to what actually the ultimate conviction was


the parties didn't develop that expert testimony all of that was developed thoroughly with depositions of the medical examiner and forensic firearms examiners and the plaintiffs points to nothing in that and the district court pointed that


court i'm steve curry i'm here on behalf of the appellate general most so in this case is a court's aware from the breaking of the parties this is a case that was dismissed by the district court on summary judgment it involves


issue of the i am a report and the in this case the employee has requested accommodation he was expanded on accommodation then he goes back again after he has been reassigned


actually amenable to suit it doesn't say so this like the wanted issue in milwaukee versus illinois is one for congress actually delegated the issue to the courts to develop this in a common law tradition rather than deciding the issue for itself precisely stuck the words in there


that could be assessed by the procedure by defense counsel and ultimately by the jury secondly did searcy or dr pryce do anything to hide or obscure whatever the problem with the evidence


going on was the district court struck the current policy and had to evaluate pretty face based on something so it evaluated it based on the next best alternative which would be the king policy i fairly certain us with the district was doing


part of course you can either use glass to cover it you do need something like that in there glass or acrylic and then you use a frame that would be appropriate to the painting


they are looking for predominantly medical professionals you know nurses doctors medical administrators meaning the folks that manage the medical staff and some of these somebodies folks are retired medical people


evidence based reading now at the essay called that score that we really need to ensure that students will be in the right path to graduate in four years so overall the academic profile is about a three point zero


companies are opportunities are you most interested in and then what we do is go out to find out who are some of those companies that are doing that or who did that he specifically and we can start to bring into the mix our students have the opportunity to connect with them and then as far as letting the students know we have a specific system where


youngster at that time and also on the other side here they had ones that went to high school and their parents and that they had built sheds for their arses because there was


and then if you put some water in them they would remain in an open position until you could drink most of the water and there was a a a wastebasket there to dispose of the paper cups after you use them


doing and i feel so good you know about being able you know to give back to my community so tell me a little bit about the foundation work what do you actually doing there is just bringing kids to to play soccer and then track and field and


well because nutrition is very very very important very very important especially when you're only especially when i'm a vegetarian and one of the reasons why i'm a vegetarian is due to run and if i want to keep on running fast as i get older you know i need to get rid of some of the things that you know


was almost washed away last spring with so much trouble that's no guarantee fred if we don't do something to help our land is going to get like there and you will know it


and then i have two freshman picture so i have a staff of five which is really really nice but whenever those three graduate you know i only have two and then we're bringing in likely you know for the class of two thousand and seventeen is that all the opportunity works at the college level


visits what's the recruiting process when you go visit the schools what are they doing with you well they show you the campus they walking around they'll show you the different facilities you know the biggest thing is the ask questions


better understanding of everything that we're capable of doing and everything that is needed in the community then we may assess and determine that we want to initiate some additional programs or do something to change the existing programs that we


accurate when used properly but nonetheless it would be it's much more complex in regards to the use of it with a radar gun again having been with state police for twenty years i used a radar gun for a number of years


large organizations will train you well you'll learn a lot about business and that will help prepare you in terms of one you know your business maturity to the way things really should work


you know the discipline around you know around various business functions this all kind comes together and large organizations but when you become the new owner own business now you're


doing everything that all these other departments us to do so you know when the you know when there was a bill to be paid you send it to accounting if there was a human resources issue you would involve other people to help you resolve that if you were recruiting to fill a


costs low our administrative costs in any given year run from fifteen to eighteen percent so that includes all churchward service employee salaries all the costs of having events like crop walks and the cost of producing


establish routines that are going to support you so the routine of maybe going to the library the routine of going to the coffee shop the routine of joining a club that maybe appeals to you and if it doesn't leave there


your customer will find someone else and stay with him well maybe i'd say five percent good but the majority of them still wanted george to cut their hair they like the white side walls that he want none of this here styling and i never did get into hair styling for the simple reason i would have to


replacements although i've accumulated emphysema through the years and saturday mornings when i open up at nine o'clock i have to get up about six thirty in fact i did that early today in order to get my rhythm back in my


you know the children might enjoy that even even the adults i mean after all where kids are now back to the food pantry we do help with


part of the washington city mission it's one if there are several retail stores and money earned at the store goes to to take care of all of their many projects i was trained as a retail clerk i did everything


assignment and i'm doing such things as doing the book work financial book work things like that but i just started that said there's a lot i still have to learn there's always a lot to learn and everything man


add that there are also be a toll free number that they'll be able to call them or anybody who who really can't afford the long distance call there is an eight hundred number they can plug into a wall phone ok so i guess now it's time for me have my closing on this


seniors bring wisdom and goodwill to the citizens of the north land


you and i rock out so come out and do another number for you and they've been on for a little later on the program so don't leave early


carnival senior world a coronation and have a wonderful evening as you enjoy the coolest celebration on earth


politics and it was the beginning of just this you know through two thousand and one i would say that it was it was almost this magical time where almost anything was possible and so i got to new york and it was very easy to find part


of dollars and and so that became attractive to try wow interesting so now with the students that that are in high school what did what kind of information


idea that we had which it wasn't that idea and we had to adjust to fit kind of the realities of what was going on and i would say that process you know as i've grown feels really great you know it's not always the sunflowers


intensive nutrition counseling or those who have high blood pressure high cholesterol diabetes or other things where their physician might refer them to a dietitian also people who are ready to begin a weight loss journey would benefit from intensive nutrition


and effective functional exercise protocol an exercise prescription so that people are safe and comfortable and feel like they have a good or poor thoughts of staff here when they get their fitness routine every single one is the same


they neither of them had a college degree so they didn't know what to do and my school counselor really felt i should apply to an ivy league school but i have very bad experience in high school where i had to transfer high schools i went to one of the premier high schools in new york city called stuyvesant


really pretty much it is what it is and that's why i tell students when you want to be a psychology major why are you going to harvard i mean it's just it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me you know so think about your major think where you can do it in the cheapest way


college they go to guidance counselor what's the advice that you want to give to those those family i would say make sure you are child's picking based on a good fit don't think about the trophy schools as much as this is the


walking a lot of people go out there and walk and they sometimes wonder why they're not getting some of the benefits that they would really like to get from it a lot of times if it's because they're not want walking at a pace that intense enough to give them some of the benefits that they would like


hundred eighty two marvin roger anderson and floyd smaller jr established rondo avenue inc as an organization dedicated to sharing the contributions of african americans and the rich cultural


matter of fact he had on the insured and it was it was getting quite expensive to be getting it all the time and i called and you sent me a couple cases of the insurer which helped me a great deal and there was a couple of things you did for me


library p a and he wanted out of the ambulance business and made us a very attractive offer price wise that if we would buy one of his vehicles he would make the price right if we would continue to


you get free anyone's carer thanks to the township where they buy a subscription for the senior citizens in the township which is again a very unique thing and something that i think doesn't get enough publicity really right i know that i was speaking to my mother today


we're looking at a big investment regime but they do of course we run them for over a hundred thousand miles and you have to in order to get your get your money's worth so to speak we're quite happy with the with the situation today both from a


it's a little bit more coverage so you know you see it's a musical now who is supplying the music we will have a live band and i'm going to conduct the band and it will be on stage with play


and you will be captive to his rhyme and his tail


april's breeze definitely dills stand row on row swaying softly to and fro in the fine breezes of your day and in the sun on display bring


very is a unique feature all by itself but we also have this marvelous location that allows the light to stand one hundred eighty feet into the sky to be seen farther than any other light on the coast of maine


to wall street to try and convince them that we are running sound economic states that our bond rating depends on our economic future we manage our retirement funds based upon the expectations of wall street now vermont


you give us a block grant for medicaid that is i had to put one dollar twenty cents billion more of general purpose revenue that is state aid state funding into this next budget even though i had to cut everywhere else it is the biggest part of my budget growing it is the biggest challenge out there we have maintenance of efforts that


consensus or compromise and one of the issues that we saw in wisconsin was that there were senators on the democrat side who left the state and failed to come to the table to address and as a public official as one who was elected i take personal offense to somebody who abrogates their responsibility by


states let me get this right you actually are a tax giver to the federal government and you are a tax taker from the federal government if i am not mistaken right for every dollar of tax you get only eighty two cents back and


problems in each of the states are derived by the unfunded mandate by the federal government governor shumlin you know i think that is an oversimplification i think the budget challenges in the states are derived from the worst recession in american history that was brought on by a lot of greed on wall street and a housing bubble that got transferred


fact an additional tax on this lift cost that you have mister layton it is easily another ten to twenty percent on top of our regular lifting costs and it


which reduces revenue for the next fiscal year and in contrast to giving these wealthy people tax breaks you cut the earned income tax credit doubling the taxes on


thousand five hundred dollars away from the poorest kids in the state for education what in the world does that have to do with balancing a budget you reinstate the thirty hour work week on welfare recipients and you


guarantee which may have one of the most fundamental features of the bailout basically everybody in america was bailed out and no one wants to talk about that there are other features to that puzzle but that


dairy and other livestock farmers who have a year round rather than a seasonal need for labor are not able to access the program because they're not included in the agricultural employment definition however they face the same challenges in recruiting reliable workers


will be over nine billion on the planet and how are we going to do it this country is positioned to do that we are environmentally sound we have good management practices we produce a highquality product and it's safely done other countries like china mexico and


the situation as it is what are the obstacles what are you hearing mister teeple it's a huge problem we're talking comprehensive immigration and it becomes larger it's like the comprehensive health care plan


of action obligations and the requirement that the government obtain a search warrant before opening the mail of american citizens and so i'm going to ask my staff along with that of my friend the ranking member


night on the numbers the issue i think part of the confusion stems from the fact that the boston globe article the first time it appeared referred to seven hundred fifty laws and i think it might be more accurate to say seven hundred fifty provisions of law since arista


i strongly support the suggestions of the task force and of the entire american bar association which which did adopt this if there is a dispute between the legislative branch of the executive branch over the


be a big quarrel about signing statements it's just you don't like what the president has to say and asto can't see much difference in the president putting it in the signing statement versus him coming out in a press conference and saying the exact same thing but the that as it may


coming out making a written statement somewhere else what's the difference between him doing that or for example you know you heard mr sensenbrenner talk about putting in committee reports what about a member who goes down to the floor and goodson a statement to the congressional record can you


precisely where we are here today where we're doing everything we can to allow the different branches of government to express their commitment to the constitution and if indeed the the president is held by the constitution


amatus brief that that was a broad delegation of authority to the president and among the instances of that broad delegation with a five or not necessarily following certain provisions


is as much oil returning from refineries or more than hyears ago so what is actually happening is that technologically they are becoming less employeeintensive and yet able to process more oil and that is not as


think we are in a better place because where that leaves us is with permits that are enforceable under law are transparent and also that give industry the ability to do their job mister farenthold and now you all are also looking at it permitting greenhouse


and when i reflect back upon my own testimony and look at the common thread here we have mandates being forced upon us without a real sense of cooperation at the local level or creation of some cooperation between conflicting bodies if you will


issues referred to in this paragraph are are matters that were developed and came out of the commercial of the ministry last including i'm just hoping to clarify what we still have a role in that issue absolutely the gentleman with you there are three


city and have a lot of as a citizen have a lot of concerns about the level of violence in our community last year we for example suffered the highest homicide rate that we've had in our city's history which is obviously most unfortunate and


is a lot of controversy about how to deal with that problem at large in the community i believe once people have been convicted and put under conditions of community supervision the opportunity exists for a judge to reinforce the existing law that says as


institute a mother who lost her son about twenty minutes later on t v says absolutely no revenge in my name we're still working together obviously more voices a lot of class has side has not


model for that there are examples but there are no examples of ways to consistently do the wall in the world both parties are willing and i think that's the start of your work may i ask also


olds to do their activity because quote the belief the juveniles will not get any time and not question to you is this we have heard testimony in here that if we simply arrest the sixteen or seventeen year olds


stands in very stark contrast with what happened and what i know firsthand happened in the implementation of the reno memorandum during the clinton administration mister gosar from your expertise here we have seen an unprecedented


immediately through a new business the concern that i have with your amendment is that if you say we can simply gather these uncollected taxes through a levy you are going to have unscrupulous business


dollar fuel contractor for the united states military in afghanistan and central asia had engaged in corruption with the former first family of kyrgyzstan while the subcommittee initially requested documents from the company the company refused to cooperate after further stonewalling


amendment further clarifies that veterans preference shall be imposed by keeping the length of the probationary period the same for veterans it also confirms that the extension of the probationary period applies only to new hires


promoted based on merit some senior positions are filled by political appointment but the vast majority of the federal workforce is appointed under the competitive service those federal workers are provided


is that once you answer a question you now it should be answered for one it should be answered for all how much of that cost across government do you believe would be eliminated if in searchable data form every answer once


here their kids are going to college they are not going to come back and be farm workers they have come to the land of opportunity they have experienced the american dream and certainly not all of them but enough


which has no desire to see that a successful program and wants to make it as difficult as possible for us to get these people who are refusing ha applications in record numbers and trying to make it


sector pensions have actually increased the risk of their target portfolio allocations since the financial crisis of two thousand and seven there is the danger that rather than learning from experience pensions will seek to double down in an effort to avoid the


government stimulus funding you obviously have a huge ipo if the government is funding it and it goes on to point out that it far outweighed u s stimulus and that china spent over five hundred and eighty six billion in infrastructure and transportation


time and nothing gets people's attention quite like an active sentence ms schapiro there is no question about that and we make many referrals to the justice department and we bring many cases jointly with local u s attorneys and district attorneys


of like contracts in which nara was silent in addressing any security requirements for the tapes or the information which they held in fact the contractor made absolutely no mention of the sensitivity of these records nor included a nondisclosure agreement when handling and processing


if you will bear with us for a moment i have asked chairman towns who is an ordained minister to do the opening prayer for this congress would you please all rise


majority to do it so i would just ask my colleagues to be aware of the history here this is the same operation of the rule same exact language as the rule in the last congress with a democrat chairman and a majority of democrats in the


those cases it requires the chairman to notify committee members within three days after the subpoena is issued about the nature of the emergency and the efforts to contact the ranking member it also requires the chairman to explain why waiting for a committee


tor for esquire magazine thomas barnett looks at the challenges and opportunities facing the united states in great powers american and the world after bush non fiction books and authors all weekend on book tv for the


a successful headcount importantly the bureau has made commendable progress over the past year in rolling out key components of the census and has strengthened certain risk management efforts still the census remains high risk because the dress rehearsal


constitution but dr proctor's not obtaining anything the patient may ultimately attain a sure but he's helping someone he's aiding d and abetting for lack of a better way of this but he her and we and we've been


is it's pointing out that here's the quote we have on occasion referred to this inquiry a statutory standing and treated it effectively as jurisdictional this nomenclature is misleading is the absence of a


action defined by michigan law michigan's wrong best at you i also think that the case law is very clear that in this circumstance the court the district court has to look to state law for guidance on the


guards carson control and it remains our position that the allegations in the plainest complaint don't pause that we allege that any n d q defendant created or perpetuated the exposure to


manage him out or whatever it is i mean i assume they would listen to him right yes but it's not anywhere in the record your honor and when we talk about this e mail the end of it kind of makes makes much of that we'll get to a good outcome as quickly as


that they have all been securely destroyed all of the copies all copies yes your honor because all of the documents that didn't become public traditional records remain subject to the protective water throughout and this court


wow this certain things appellant seat might make them happy or this psychic satisfaction as he calls it isn't acceptable to create an article three controversy and to answer your question what about the


anything that's why is he maybe i'm not surprised you're agreeing with him a maybe but i don't understand what the negative point is all you want to do is you want to representation that no one has a copy ok and the only representations you


is here which is the jackson versus virginia standard which we defer to the jury's verdict and i would point out that the district court did ultimately apply the correct standard in its


this is what her you know obviously they have you have a very real interest you to say oh no i didn't and and again there is an approximately twelve different difference remarks that were made over the


even talking about direct evidence and then of course whether or not that alleged animus influenced the decision in this case and a question for do you are you familiar with the michigan supreme court case of dobro the century twenty one great


directly to the employees instead of low and as is and the corresponding track record is looking at the whole employee roster if you will and saying look we don't really need this position i don't think and davidson says yeah you know what you're right we really don't


assume the existence of a good faith offense under section nine hundred and eighty three dollars and it can assume for the sake of argument the private defendants can assert a defense that resembles qualified immunity in section one


and trying to distinguish all of the damages case on that basis well you know the truth is that this really is properly characterized as a damages claim but at the end of the day it really doesn't


wrong i mean that the bankruptcy court kind of talks about it as compensatory damages but also talks about unjust enrichment unjust enrichment as i understand would sound in the


compensatory remedy but that you couldn't get there were no compensatory damages therefore you couldn't get punitive damages under florida law and what i'm hearing you argue on appeal is the


evidence none that anyone had a promise to pay eduardo money for murdering someone is just insufficient proof of the crimes in this case and my brief deals with it very extensively i think in conclusion


both take the drugs and the money what happened unfortunately was the victim would kill and they believe the tire going to the money and the drugs quote unquote went off the grid which is why they couldn't find


him more severely because he's black it would be it has to do with why he would readily consent and not give the impression with with that he would be disobeying an order but there's also nothing in the record to


your argument for the absolutely so what saves matter a b as far as the court in gracie bar is concerned is that word that it says generally these cases will not be successful and only


viewing one side in favor of the other and i think that's what the dissertation shows and i think it's evidence by the way she's author of her report on top of that john doe testified in his deposition that her questions were accusatory


paragraph in the in the concurrence kind of suggesting that like this might not be as watershed of a consideration as we're thinking because it could still be a statutory defense but i think you know i think i found this case three o'clock yesterday just in review before i came here but in thinking about when


position or isn't heightened once you get in the federal court to ask the federal court to look beyond that record but that's not what happened here this isn't the situation where broom went into the federal court math judge boyko to look at all


protocol to be changed is a point that goes to the question hey b s about whether the supreme court of ohio when it's looking at that evidence and trying to make making judgments about it against the client's claim that in


talking about arrests in the execution of the agreement are you not correct so how could you have the rest in the execution of parts parts of it but not the other part your honor we would also still have that the claims for the breach of contract claims would


discrimination claim that those claims must be brought in the same action so another question that this case raises as a puzzle for me at least is that the state court he has not reached


for him but he distinguishes the other two officers what rather what is there to show that the other officers exerted excessive force well st of all i think that


intervention which is just a substantial legal interest which has been very broadly construed by this core in miller janson grutter and other cases they have that because their claims are the mirror image of the claims presented by


of statements like we can infer a nexus between a drug dealers home and evidence of their crimes this court st made the statement in the case of drug dealers evidence is likely to be found or they live in united


be authenticated to come and it was harmful and the court should order a new trial on those grounds on sentencing which of course the government doesn't need to address if they are the court doesn't need to address if it does order a new trial


this pattern that's happening and i think most disturbing of all is the harassment that he experienced in the gas station parking lot yes there was nobody on that in that incident who uttered a racial epithet but look at how


that's and then in answering your question i'm trying to build what you know as as we know in the six circuit you have to evaluate all of the totality of circumstances and that goes up to the point where they did to desired to use force and those things are from everything from


obviously it would not be a strategic bonus for the state to have a potential juror hiding out in in undisclosed bias against the state because of the state prosecuting its families


already made my decision she's like i think that there's no reason to stay here but i'm asking for the parties and put it as far as i can tell from the record i think judge brown stated on the record that in chambers she had indicated she had done independent


sale happens it should've been stayed and it's a violation whether it's willful or not if it's months down the road that's that's another situation there and there are several kill them so the bankruptcy judge


question that i asked before which is what's your view on what rule of evidence this was injured under six thousand and eighty six or nine or what is known as the rule or against a rule of contradiction but i believe the government's purpose was


actually that rogers case that when there is an error of law that


question is were the constitutional issues that we have been roaming around here were they raise in this case or are we just speculating as judges hear about hypotheticals


tested at lower levels just at other labs is that enough is that legal question what this language means by how much testing is necessary and mike is that is that enough


the way a summary judgment because had there been a motion for summary judgment we would have a record of the evidence in support of the two percentage rate and we don't have


placed later you're engaged in connecting work those two thousand and four case then i think even more importantly you have this california opinion letter it's the same language exactly yes the california statute your own role so they can


nine and it doesn't matter if the reason that they're doing so is because they have a permanent ingrained bias against one sex or another because they want to avoid liability from the federal government who is threatening to yank their funding or because they genuinely believe that discriminating on the


are their sleep unconscious otherwise unaware that sexual activity is occurring how is that standard that here on the allegations in the complaint does a complainant lack conscious


not sure if i know it's not quite that that the point is that when state law creates the process for claiming a state right like the right to get on the ballot you have to utilize the state process before you even get the right so for example if i have an initiative that i never submit i don't have a right to put that on


doesn't even mention well so i guess we're being kind of generous to give you the chance now to address those briefs just seemed startling to me that you were in the dress cases that were


rb did not like that it came down this way but it doesn't change the fact that doesn't empower them to simply say we don't like your decision as long as he has substantial evidence to support the decision and he says you can't believe anything the man


inside a universal life policy such as the universe life policies it issued in this case is pretty plain vanilla meffert he called the industry standard he even went so far to say that he didn't have any problems with the


eight j letter last week took the opportunity to review the standard of review issue and i believe that what we have here is a problem opportunity for this panel to set


is undisputed throughout the record that this playing on was developed after a long period of time in order to address overcrowding in the dutch town schools which borders the respect and rouge area it just was


new found a case where there's a new jersey conviction app on the theory that m t s stands for there will always be convert couper sion unless the victim has explicitly invited the intercourse


disability there is also a leading a writing a written expression in the mouth but the school district kept saying she didn't have an educational need for those disabilities because and they believed it was a lack of instruction because she was going to private


uncovered it was the language in byrd that talks about that doesn't change the status of the relationships of the koger in corps with each other then what happens is you figure damages based upon equitable contribution


definition the stipulation goes way beyond that the stipulation says that the is the settlement agreement as a whole in the settlement agreement is defined the company is defined to include peron and


owners claim in an interest i agree you owe me x number of dollars under the policy and if that is the case and you only have a five day payment deadline that presumes you have all the information at that point that you need to pay the fine last question on this


z we requested last year please submit that so we can figure this out in your honor i'm not sure that there i think there are bits and pieces of the e mails throughout that period and i would point out that what judge


on a and i accept and so the claim under section fifty six but what i think too often the case that the amount of the loss is far more in dispute than the one of those coverage when is your position it seems to me is that there's two


between a given crime and then the given the given job and the dangers of working in that given job so what that means is all of our policies which are sort of blanket refusals to hire criminals for certain sensitive areas of government they're all


cash she said no that was a separate question from where he said i had no she had no agreement that's correct that is the record here how many times did he say he'd ever even met miss heller i don't think he i don't think ever said he never met her how many times he said he matter


had was your honor undisputed evidence that mr brumfield reads at a fourth grade level the state's own expert put him in a fourth grade level and the state's expert described that is this that's that's simply word recognition is a quote that's not even comprehension


your honor i would like to go to a couple other points that were raised by the state just to just to clarify a few things in the record the the state mentioned many times saying that the district court cut off the trial record and there's some sort of issue here


strong suit but but in this particular situation there i think the best thing to do is is if you grant on this one in the whole thing is to go back if not then you go back and you look at the other issue which is respect to the efficacy of the evidence with respect


change or otherwise it update so the notion of it being like permanent is a little bit inconsistent with the nature of sort of what it is no words as you say who


to follow because we want some you know yes remark down you know you're right go you know get on it and then when you found a council opposite you can have ten day seven days to reply if you need to but mainly it's not so


that's not the only requirement to trigger coverage under the the organiser law writer they have to establish that there is a legally required change to an undamaged portion of the dwelling that's caused by the imports


to the undamaged portion of the dwelling caused by the enforcement of a building ordinance so if we only pay for changes that are caused by enforcement that would specifically require that some unfortunate go to


disputed intent element first the prosecution was permitted to bombard the jury with questions and testimony that equated bad checks with fraud and that identified the defendant's conduct as fraud second the defense was


that mr davoren has to know he's not deceiving the bank but that but a reasonable girl a juror would probably look at the the validation of a fraud instruction as the more precise instruction that deals with that that deals with that question


that is a particularly that the jurors such as this case are particularly troubling when they are combined with the prosecution's strategy of consistently bombarding the jury with questions and testimony that equate bad checks and fraud because


there was nothing to call this salters attention or any one of the government's attention to that document as being missed it was simply a document that was missed but as far as its importance to it with the sealed document where it was not the supplement sealed yes


don't know i would i would think that i need for me to survive here or for colonel harris to get a complete reversal both contracts would have to be would have to withstand both contracts because the


next time around it's very natural for a construction company to want to do construction management it's not some sort of janitorial type work doing construction for the very first time this was a company that perhaps didn't have a lot of employees but they were


judgment on one point four million against both stark county and canals that would be if we don't go your way to matter on that i guess that's the point because you're not arguing back case different piece you not arguing that that's correct and back pay is not issue before this court that was not appealed


exceptions and the law enforcement proviso would self kiki and it isn't trumped by the foreign country exception your honor that that particular language i think was directed to the extent to which the they were asserting a t s claim against the individual federal officers which would be clouded by the


question it's not necessary to resolve in this case because at a minimum the law was not clearly established at the time of the events in the question that the constitution protected a foreign national president on foreign


the policy making that led to the search which was planned from a d a s office in california and clearly that's not what the supreme court had in mind in her do go another case in point your honor to is the morrison case from the supreme court in two thousand and ten which involved which it was a statutory case admittedly


this trial chris was promoted to sergeant


the second part of martin it is a compensation do case it is a martinez case where the settlement agreement does not specify f l s a and judge rodriguez correctly said relying on this court's precedent so you may doesn't have yet


where the court had maybe very little to go on or only had the testimony of the of the state's experts and security guards to rely on he actually had other viewpoints to consider and he did consider those and he made findings


ari and so but there are certain exceptions which would allow the deposition could be yes and so my question is which exception are exceptions specifically are you contending applied in this case


do that but the fact of the matter is presented to that jury there was proof she imported the image there was proof she made all the arrangements in china to ship the engines from china to the united


opinions are so many going to get confusing for them in the motion to dismiss is number one and number two the very first debate opinion written back in february of two thousand and eleven judge genesis concurrence warner disagreed with the majority quote the majority


the establishment of a new residence ok if i come


nautilus requested proof of loss multiple times and that they outright refused to sign they work even after litigation commence they outright refused to sign a proof of loss and


the charge was specifically established that the insurer is liable for the claim and that the insurer violated the specific section of the act alleged and that's from salinas versus state farm which is a case from this court in two thousand and two that simply


then precluded our right to get on the first horse to resolve that attachment when the policy when judge bar b a says well this will just take time his only resolution is rewrite the and so the timing issue would provide fifty million of benefits


would you agree that if it specifically had said and we released the non debtor mr miller to you'd be out of luck if we had not raised that objection in the underlying case of the bankruptcy court that it would don't comes down to who's the


after the case was originally filed the f l s a case which was against very miller thing inc and larry miller from the get go was filed in november of two thousand and twelve i believe that the bankruptcy respond in february of thirteen if i'm not


or claims against that debt or are defined by the debtor against which we brought them the several claims against mr miller individually which are not addressed by name with regard to him in the plan