so we in order to agree with you we would have to find that the language in the statute shows that congress did it did not leave a gap for the agency to find here right with respect to isn't that chevron step


what position was that did the hospital think it was interviewing for emergency room nurse that they had three they had three positions available two of which were going to be full time positions and one of which was going to be an


adam is here we didn't set the separation into motion here mishaps and went out got other employment came to the emergency room director and said i have a full time job working from nine to five the p r and shift that's testified to was to be work for the day they needed


this case is about whether the parties will be allowed their freedom of contract to govern their own resolution of conflicts within their contract the convention does


was in the same situation as the graphic packaging it was to the extent that there was one entity that transferred operating assets to a different entity no i'm talking about that the quick if used to look at it the district court remind me


debt here's what i would like you to go back and read in all of those definitions because i've done it if one is talking about how to define liquidation of an entity it means selling off assets of the entity in order to i mean like that can be the


the claim is at the end of the existing at the time of the spill or the success around it in that case said that the entity in existence at the time of this bill is the one who should file the claim that's exactly what jamie did here it's was an ongoing business it didn't


or connected with the services services was clearly defined in the contract as the furnishing of a vessel and that is where this incident rose from this court is well familiar with the


and that policy has to have contractual habit of coverage if this condition precedent coverage is breached then all coverage on the new policy is boy for any and all insured and it doesn't matter whether or not


where the defendants believe that the jury got the verdicts right and in a lawful manner on all points that leaves us with about half of the issues to quibble over because we


circuit's wisely were elevated to the minimum conscionable level which they said was one hundred ten thousand dollars my client unfortunately despite causation be established was awarded seventeen


so we get to the issue of where they confused well what happened was after three hours on friday they then come back we haven't heard they read the verdict to give all the medicals and they give zero


good way to run a claim system but secondarily your client may be benefited this time but the next case because i maybe up two million dollars and i think if there's no economic sense to what is being done and i'm not seeing what it is yet and


has been involved in the legal issues are cases removable is their right to appeal you know does federal law preempt state those are legal issues clearly those are appropriate for the court


inherently an inherent problem with the fact that the settlements been around since two thousand and twelve here we are in two thousand nineteen and this is the first time you're being asked to take even consider exception with that we would ask that the


the casino what i can tell you is there's nothing in the records that indicate that he is missing ships in any kind of significant amount to really in any kind of amount that was an incomplete analysis it really was a red herring and the district court


in the briefs in this court either in the opening or the reply so that's a new theory mr phillips says he wasn't confused and if he wasn't he says he wasn't deceived or misled and if he were not deceived or misled


what information the defendants were acting on the complaint says nothing about what the defendants were told and oh yes he was arrested on the spot based on the condition of the docs it's as if that's insufficient


is an entity known as a second in time first petition that i know i don't know is micheline over so that was the avenue that we pursued the district court dismissed that petition and we independently appealed that case that's the zero six case those cases were consolidated in homes


strength well away more in conformity with what the supreme court has said and forward and in some ways something more straightforward anyway why isn't it just to take this a step at a time after the hearing for ryan versus


if there is a position taken by the school that there may have been an abuse of discretion in the limited area to


sense of the sense of bad it's past people's knowledge comes from what they read or from what people tell them correct that's right so your suggesting that you have to have an actual observation mind


that may be the case around or that may be the case was there anyone who had any information other than to tear himself like this is what they're saying that this was


look at my favorite client but i don't think take no facts to the thing of course it was rebutted by the mayor whether or not he said i don't care if the mayor repetitive i agree missing those facts are true those issues that the mayor said i want to run him out of town or i don't


evidence for example that his parents were actually there that day even though there were family members there but we don't know who they were exactly but what we have here is here's the circumstantial evidence that we have one key here is that


can figure out how they possibly could determine in the pat down search that a soft object that fell like tissue was apparently drugs or that a


money are they wasting their time leaving work to defend well i mean they're losing weight just to leave in order to find it but you have all admitted they all the money well not the not the stage of the small claims case


to do to issue an order which would allow you to break that contract well with respect to the fully insured plan if we are subject to the mandate we we


law student health provides coverage for additional women's health products or procedures that the university of checks to based on its religious belief this coverage is separate from notre dame


lobby plaintiff who didn't object to the got two to two that if you don't need much evidence to say we've got title nine or sorry we have title ten we have exchanges students can pull up their i phone and plug in healthcare dot gov


further notice that notre dame is required to provide it so that at this stage while i understand that notre dame is complaining about an ongoing association with its insurer


next round of cases in which it was fully aware but i do think that the court's reasoning was you either provide this coverage or you face the financial penalties and we think that


the problem is it's the government's bird and the government has offered nothing on it and so with respect to this preliminary injunction it particularly in light of court is that still good law that issues over and so i thought so the injunction needs to be issued but you're


not the amount available because you can always make a lot of the eligible the issue is what is the actual recovery of the class it's very easy to create burdens to recovery or make


one thing that this court's cases including palla and more than a decade now of this court's cases tells us is that when we agree to this cap on fees that's not putting forth a half million dollars on the table it's saying we'll pay whatever the court thinks is appropriate


and with one for one purpose and another for completely different purpose this was all collectively his efforts working in their behalf to lift sanctions against zimbabwe so he started with mugabe


because once it designated all non license individuals as helpers by definition those individuals were not permitted to perform the journeymen elect now of course since


response brief and i imagine you would want to respond to the plaintiffs so i can i do your honor and although i believe that the dispositive issue in this case is whether there was a breach of contract and as this is a district


after that fifteen days after he came at because it was an obviously cute serious most serious medical condition but when the the decision maker in this put time place clancy says you're


in addition we ask only that consistent with the arguments in our brief that the court provide guidance on the issue of recent sane and permissible factors to the district court upon remain and unless the court has any questions


arose from the lewis litigation where the louis louis versus city of chicago where a class of people was designated that the fire department had to hire and the process was as follows first of all it began with


would be if we ever got to trial not until april second does the employer come back and say oh by the way you're medically qualified you're fine but too bad the training process is started


two way and they initially did because they required her their testing i mean the first medical screening was something presumably everyone went through i guess that's a step that i'm not quite so good on the first the first the first level of medical testing is


asking this court to go back in time despite knowing what we know now and to honor the fourth amendment and happened that now the defendants were placed handcuffed into a marked


would be a bankruptcy judge bankruptcy trustee be entitled to a higher commission


i mean what happened in that case is that he had to work a great deal in the bankruptcy try to get his mount of his work depend on the size of the secured claims that's the issue whether he can get a


and we have a state lawsuit which did it jurisdiction only after all that was done all those lawsuits have been filed to try to file its tribal action and the only way it could do that was


central transaction so accordingly the defense attempt to collect that dollar fifty parking fee was an attempt to collect the debt as defined by the f t c p s now the district court in concluding otherwise


wasn't happy no say did mr x you stuck point take it he stopped in his tracks and then returned back to the woman that he had been victimizing turned out to be his girlfriend and the two


action even absent a retaliatory notice that's not what the district court required here right we know that the we know that the content of the instruction was wrong do we know how that ensued how that content got into the instructions of looked at the


objections were not the objections being argued on appeal i'm just not sure how that fits with the role of the appellate and district courts course run on the jury instruction question with the no objection question this court


not clearly erroneous and on top of that we do stand by our good faith argument and the fact that the defense kind of doubles down on that argument they were the ones to raise that he should have used as i phone or could have used his


have been a stop from relying on or asserting that policy exclusion by reason of its breach of the insurance contract by failing to pay for the joyce firm's defense or whether as the district court determined the stoppel


hundred some odd thousand dollars part of the award is the disgorgement attorney's fees right i agree with you there is no it clearly it seems to me falls within the attorney's fees exclusion well he


it's when it's really something that's the the unrep the party that's where i get into the fact that actually governance at the bar is not the party's responsibility it's the court's responsibility and if if you turned out halfway


could look at various factors but they're not dispositive they're not being exclusive and essentially right now we have a blank slate in illinois as to what constitutes legitimate interest in which to uphold a restrictive


and you can make that is very clear if you look at his his statement which is an appendix from his opinion appendix page thirty two and i'm quoting instant did not prove a near permanent


blank slate totality of the circumstances test in illinois how does anybody decide it vies a client with any confidence whether a covenant will be enforced very difficult and in fact a lot of the writings in


trust referred to defend its claim that ms pop yano and miss le claire noticed that in her any issues she was having were improving but that an incident with an employee named tiny warner was that was the quote unquote last


the the substance of the pay claim it shouldn't be considered because it wasn't raised at the district court in response in summary judgment judge can correctly noted that although the defendants moved to dismiss the paid claims


this in our response to the motion to dismiss in our response to the motion for summary judgment and they were the ones who brought it up in their response for this appeal we address


so just to get the waiver you're saying a court would need to find an interpreter who speaks the defendant's native language to get that waiver yes your honor and we have to separate these two inquiries if the court has no


to call out milligan live to and that's what we're asking for that we get a chance to develop all these issues and then in the district court and then be able to bring them back to you


and as i said also said before that we see the truck crossing the highway now he goes immediately over to the shoulder that's debatable right at what point you move over because he's moving to the shoulder but the fact of the matter is he


that doesn't make sense i understand brother but the she ultimately gets out of the car he puts her out of the car because she doesn't have the insurance and so they're going to go check it on the patrol car but he can look it up there and that's how she ultimately


running from law enforcement was the but for cause of martina says death in other words it wouldn't have occurred but for prodding and the stress associated with the smuggling operation as


operation it's not a heart attack it's an earthquake well i'm running to what


martn the harm a card to martina's if the court as i said wants to inject forsee ability get into it then by nature and land smuggling is going to you're going to see physical injuries you're going to see deaths but how they


if they never could see this coming i appreciate all that and i understand all that but that's why as i've said before the facts in the courthouse to look at the situation in conjunction with the facts and i think that's why a lot of these opinions have been


it's probably over a million dollar exposure here so so great discharges its coverage in this case when with the duty to defend and indian harbor policy ever be triggered


parties right i don't know what the limits of the store other than to say that in a case like this where they illegally dispense the drug that has known side effects including hypoglycemia and they have behavioral changes where they cause the problem they


so the other two are there's a couple of other cases where this court has actually distinguished between the prime the facia showing and the subsequent analysis regarding pretext in which the court applied that but for standard


intervention of the u s attorney bringing a contempt charge that's not true that say the element on case that i cited in the brief clearly held that the district court has the authority to initiate criminal contempt proceedings on its own and maybe even


punishments of conduct and so the and that's the specific punishment that is meted out for any statutory violation that's why there has to be expressed statutory authorization for any


withholding they're taking away from your current billings and giving holding money you might otherwise be entitled to is the recoupment aspect to this case or is the government just asking at the end of this whole proceeding if they when you write us a check there is a recruitment aspect to this case


this definition of homebound lends itself to some gray areas it does your honor in this it's not you know takes a village it's it it lends itself to some great years here and i think in this case because this is an administrative proceeding there's of course the substantial evidence standard and the council of


we'll be ordered to participate in a sex offense specific assessment and then you'll pay the cost of abel and then at the bottom you will be ordered to register as a sex offender a sex the civic sex offense specific assessment is


improper motive or reckless disregard cannot three talk about the timeline for a moment about exactly hsu knew what and when to my understanding is that in january of fourteen is when your client got the seven


unless you know the judge presiding is a really good judge on this kind of complex business case this is really one of his shop strong points is understanding this kind of business relationship


neurosurgeon he's a carryover they ask you are surgery runners correct yes and so it's those example pardon me that conduct shows and doctor me nare also was involved in the operations of it that's something that they they pled specifically in their


expectation that it will be purchased by consumers in the form not the united states in the form that form here is texas and the key here is the expectation and judge southwick i think that's exactly the


numbers how many of the seats are in texas on this record we only really know two and that was the ones that were in stocks car as far as the regular anticipated flow we just don't have that in this record so that makes this also


to the target in georgetown jumping to april third and says as we always do that mr cruz will be delivering narcotics this is the situation which brings us to may third and this is the one that that's


court threw this out the the criminal proceedings and did it make finding that that these things had actually occurred up i know


regulate well in codex your honor code x was ordered to clean up the property but a receiver was appointed a receiver was appointed who divested kovacs of all of his assets took it all the authority


and he says no it was very dark and there that's that's the essence of the dispute but that's something that is a different narrative factually it's not you're not arguing the qualified immunity legal standard as to excessive force and no sir we're


i think that the appellant cite numerous cases in the reply in a string say two of which are from the fifth circuit a number of which are from the first the eleventh all of those cases are posted ball but if you look at each of those cases you will see the court grappled with qualified


there is a greater risk that violent behavior will occur when an officer inters that there would be an issue of fact if he hadn't called little yes if he


and so in this case the court should not apply the residual clause as the appellee as have suggested and that's under subdivision forty nine a fourteen the question as


with respect to the shares he wasn't technically a shareholder he received payments just as though he were shareholder he had the enjoyed the potential upside just as he was a shareholder he enjoyed the risk of insolvency just as he was a shareholder and that


circumstances of course i knowledge that there is this whole surrounding circumstances but the law is crystal clear even in the case they cite you can't use it to create ambiguity you cannot use it to vary or contradict


have the actual panda device but we have an equivalent and you would see everyone else sitting on an exercise device and they would be exercising and sitting in the place where you're to go to exercise would be an instruction that because remember this court's


law an article levin the court addressed the three prohibited activity that icon had undertaken manufacturing selling and offer to sell clearly the court found that the manufacturing was


understood absolutely does matter with respect to the york decision having occurred as wholly a transaction that transpired in china consider the following with me as relates to the


case law and under the facts as set out in the p s r so just briefly the error was in the us into level enhancement based on a prior conviction the prior conviction conduct took place before the st order of deportation but the conviction after the st order of


court what do you mean this ingestion that was made and then you responded in a letter as i recall that you didn't seem to like that idea so tell me about that issue so st of all this idea of a limited remained


prong three when there's a guideline error and it's almost up to the government to kind of rebut that they didn't quite put it that way but that's kind of what rob was going with us and just to clarify so because i realize that the language i use was kind of confusing so


he's a bit farther than that but i really can tell you i'm sort of being me exactly here's what i don't understand about the constitutional right to be president sentencing he was present at sentencing it was when the judge said you get forty


manual that the team and team member and her peers to the prescribed a higher standard of conduct and that the only discipline that was inflicted upon her was regarding the participation in the team and that the supreme court for half a century has


argument whatsoever that that was inadequate or insufficient it's by anybody there was no finding we made that allocution did any i'm sorry or he said that it allocution he said that at the sentencing


in the actual there are cases that say whether or not a date of an offense occurred that that is not a factual issue as opposing counsel pointed out that there are others


one who again the titles don't matter by themselves but when we look at the facts he was not just regarded as the c f o and the office manager and human resource manager of the office he had broad responsibilities and the evidence


pastor even an action of a comedian let me go back to the language of the policy because the district court didn't talk about this quote managing the church and i question that the


about the company as you say a departure from its usual course of investigating incidents leading to discipline including speaking with the employee themselves and i've read it through twice but i may have missed something but i don't


agreement with union pacific his employer and what this does is it enables the employee to avoid discipline they waive what they would otherwise have is their resort under the collective bargaining agreement to challenge the


of all four shots from the being back shotgun was not the correct analysis that each shot from the beanbag shotgun had to be analyzed for its reasonable miss because there was a shot an impact a shot an


not posing a threat all the evidence is that after the third shot he quickly got back up he never dropped the knife and it was very very short period of time also one of the point i was like to make is


was one of the counsel below i was one of the counsel below now in terms of supervisory liability quick point on that if the court reinstate institutes the unlawful entry claim and the excessive force claim against


with which appellants had objected to the settlement that a settlement was approved over their objection and they never appealed that that was that was what the documents showed they showed payments to management not to the defendants in the adversary proceeding


material here because the number one concern of the court was is this false and again taken in context a colo colloquial expression like half of the half of crosses body was in a taxi he


derivative work rights in the second sentence which has to be in the in the document for purposes of italian copyright law it's just a box you have to check and you're telling copyright law to say that we also are granting the right to make derivative works described in america


that music in the film but one of the things they're not going to be doing is is making derivatives except as expressly authorized under this agreement which i'll get to in a moment so there's not there shouldn't be more rights even


by the state court judge that he understood it that is the key point again if that matters and there is no fund then what does standard of review to go on and well


trial in particular district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that the defendant threatened to kill a cooperating witness and use case it was error not to give the limiting instruction no your honor not in this case where the


something that shows that a cop was made that was racially motivated that the basis of that comment was to stop her from being retained or to interfere with a contractual


you know it's conceivable that a vice principal would be within his bounds to to to object on that basis in some factual context that's not before us today but what's before us today is that she didn't do anything wrong and the complaint says


negligence fraud or bad faith before we could derivative li represent one forty eight south emerson's so see it's the only reason for that will is this court is aware is when a board of directors of a


course were both sanctioned fifty thousand dollars each for that case but doctors done the exact same thing and it reflects that fundamental principles of law that you can pursue a derivative claim simultaneously with a


for the trial and in fact the party didn't show up someone else showed up and they brought their own lawyer and they said well we're going to be responsible for this case we all know


court's judgment when it's not on the merits and so on i'm not i can't recite the exact words but the federal court didn't adopt the state's judgment and that and they didn't apply or counter claims


deception would do it whether it's an airlines ticket business vacation business a a sales of cigarettes whatever i agree that's why if there was a restriction it had to be narrowly tailored yes you want to impose a restriction you


my client has you know not seen as children despite the fact that he has custodial rights and in this matter that's why the continuous liberal interpretation of the continuous retention is appropriate in this matter are


the board say that's deficits within our reprehensible conduct definition because it seems to me that in some of these cases at least that have been prosecuted in new york state even though


and so on down the line the problem here and what makes these cases different in the maritime area but not so different from other areas where you have had a massive overnight collapse


used to purchase fuel to go on any of these vessels that's the irony here what you have an irony but it's an irrelevant it's not irrelevant because what we have is if we're looking at who did what wrong and why judge force was correct


gets and who it is obligated with anyone it's obligated to give that money to us is not a question for southern district joe that's correct it's a


in this superseding indictment it relies on different evidence which of course we have they tried to extend it to will be from two thousand and nine to two thousand and fourteen and it exposes him to a greater sentence and of course you have that


believe makes this confession involuntary so anything that happened before the statement became involuntary i would agree with you that there's no basis to suppress that just if to


the wording that is a matter of contention the meaning of which was in the order before you launch into that neither side addressed to recent decisions of


and actually that specific section says you can pay money pursuant to a restraining notice if you are directed by the sheriff or in or an order of the court so it would seem to not make sense that i can pay money to or that subject to assure a notice of


there was the allegation of a counter claim but it is there was no admissible evidence on the record that compromised three point five the case settle for two point two that's that's just


one suggested that any court sitting in new york federal or state wouldn't sit down and analyze the priorities of the various levies and turn over orders and evaluating whether or not to direct a payment were restraining orders was issued by another court and go through the analysis and say ok


this record given how cumulative any additional swahili impeachment material would have been in this trial and certainly to the extent the court disagrees with that the proper remedy with respect to the curve current standing of the case would be


and grant mr fernandez a new trial starting with the brady claim the first apartment committed an egregious error when it applied the wrong standard for evaluating the materiality prong of mr fernandez's brady claim the


i want to correct a fundamental misstatement made by counsel which is we don't rely just on section five point six i mean there are page after page of our briefing to this court discusses section five point four which judge


the complaint alleges in great detail for example that express scripts gave much cheaper pricing to other large customers without even near who didn't have nearly the clout of anthem that's it's very there's a lot of detail in the clean about what terms


to register as a sex offender and then this lying spoke to her again after she had pled guilty and before sentencing and this brooks was concerned about what the term of imprisonment might be imposed upon or all of that suggests respectfully that she did understand


allocution is inadequate and if the court is going to remain and this case i would ask that the court remain on the case for involuntary in this hearing on this question thank you very much thank you both and we reserve decision


right cities and parks they were private property right in cornelia's i believe that's correct ok so now you've got channels that not from time immemorial but from the from the beginning of cable have been private property correct but if


consolidated note and mortgage it has identical language to them what as what was used here section two seventy five to see speaks to a situation with the original and assigns the note and mortgages


provide me with one month's rent let's go to the meeting with the landlord and let's negotiate the terms of the lease prior to the execution of that lease miss


customer would rely on what was said rather than what was written i think that if you look to what standard contract law would say in context beyond that that's not a context of


i don't think that we had any need to address the no cause of action argument raised in the in the in the opposition brief but in fact we did


disturbed that's not to stir and i would argue and again as far as the state of the law again how decisions were rendered and the basis for them you know it is important to


calendar year really not remembering the date your honor but my memory was a couple of months after the decision came down and but that very general member can i ask your colleague do you


speedy trial and the government is telling the court well for twenty months we just shrugged it off because we didn't care because it was going to hurt us if he sat there in jail wondering if he's going to go to trial and maybe we'd figure out something maybe we decide to try him anyway at the end of the day


cases into a situation where somebody had a speedy trial coming and you know it seems to me that that is a training that needs to be restored a little bit because you know it shouldn't be if the court isn't acting on


it a conversation about legal advice received from an attorney it's absolutely correct and that it would that is our position with regard to this so because the district court in this case missed this critical element and did


government started out claiming that there was a loss in excess of two million three hundred thousand dollars the restitution amount the actual loss was set at two hundred ninety thousand dollars to two million dollars less a minimum wage to


much less time than many of the others he made significantly less money he was not the same as the other defendants and should have been treated as an individual that's what our law requires


over and so you don't get it you don't get a day in court and that so they're saying in our case now in this appeal that we don't get a day in court because they unilaterally effectively withdrew the notice that we're supposed to have an


saved and basically medicaid reimbursements so there can't be any correlation but effectively the hospitals are saving less because of this recoupment concept but it's sort of keep going forward in the sort of think about


finding that the when jackie increase regarding grosses whereabouts were threats or did not finding that the siblings in hiding or earth in finding the roses stillings in hiding meant that they were safe and urged in finding that the cain


possible does not mean that the petitioners have prevailed that the evidence especially just given the totality of the circumstances and roses time in the united states her lack of exposure to the movie directly and her family which


air review or made factual determination which i can't do correct so i would start with the nd paragraph on a r five that's st assuming the respondent will face criminal


requiring making the font whole do you have a case that contains neither of those mentions i don't think that there is a case meeting that specification your honor isn't that what we have here we do have that here your honor


it make sense then to say that they don't have to make the payments into the fund now because they didn't the board didn't say that they had to make payments into the fund they these employees have been made whole and that they have been reimbursed


or you have so many contacts that you're essentially at home whereas the pennsylvania fire line of cases was talking about consent and that's the argument opposing counsel made that seems to be what the supreme court has said so what how would that


involved in sports gambling once he receives it even if he you know claims to be an intermediary so at that point it's it's proceeds isn't all of those cases under that section your


this agency defense all of these arguments yawners are based on his unsupported and self serving claims that he was an agent of the gambler the evidence in the record however shows that defendant was


correct so he did that on his own that was voluntary right in the checks the box which says my selecting this check box in the continue button i agreed to the u p s technology agreement and the u


charges he found the camp charges to be a preposition claim so but with respect to a stop will certainly disputed as to whether they were because the obligation came due after after that petition i mean that


left but just to clear up the landlord's testimony that or at least the way it's been characterized that ms chong was never there is just not supported by the testimony at trial and the strong was always there which is why the test


a he was found credible and in his testimony he did testify as to problems with the f s b and he was getting audited and there were all sorts of he was there is that in


the officers so what's the difference i don't believe the fact that was turning towards the officers in the arrest like i said he was surrendering and he vis a vis surrendering but he's been very consistent on how you the surrendering similar with the shots to the back when in


and discriminates then it's preempted that's just not the the law on this and this nation five circuits have considered this issue including this circuit three times and attorneys liability alliance for non profits in greenfield and in all of those cases


other factors such as exercise medication mood activity level i don't think it would be accurate to describe functional capacity for a particular number of hours and that's why the range is used so that


that everywhere in the world where people are victims of sectarian strife or her violence that that general population is conferred with eligibility for asylum you have to


another what we also have another question that actually relates not just this case but a lot of these immigration cases we get we have a situation where the government will point to the country or would says you know from these my perspective sitting here


this along with my colleague derek adams on behalf of appellants khalifa enough work i'd like to reserve three minutes of time if i may all right there are three fundamental issues that i think


theoretically a civil matter the court could address it again it's a matter of prudence the government recommends remaining here in light of the gaps the particular gaps here with respect to the withholding of


turning out to his claim that it is inappropriate to rule on cat in this setting st as i think judge murphy correctly pointed out the issues that are problematic with withholding decision don't


adds nothing new of any consequence finally the statement we need police it was no secret to the jury that police were called to the scene here and again that's no surprise in a situation where


factual basis statement says all the elements of the crime of eight dollars to twelve dollars o three a two and trouble for a two and totally tracks the language of the subsections but to make much of the fact that the


nothing about the legal system in the united states and she says well i know i have no arrests i mean i think that that is something that you would you have to be compelled to state that this is not something that would go to her overall


yes we would have to believe that this is what the judge and her attorney told her and again do you just counsel through your own records firm that there was an arrest and that the case was ultimately just mr counsel i don't recall and


with the bankruptcy court did so and in terms of other issues that's about half the time that we had i don't know if there were any are particular important


if you win what are you going to actually be able to collect now that you wouldn't be able to collect under their theory ok counsel mentioned that absent a bankruptcy stay elite would be able


in this record that in guatemala in society people who have filed a police report are recognised as a distinctive social right the two thousand and fourteen report that's in the record doesn't specifically come out and say there is a


s corporation to the shareholder so that the courts of appeals have interpreted the language of that statute to mean that the debt must run directly from the s corporation to the


will be submitted on behalf of the court i thank mr fu for taking his case on pro bono i thank both council for their excellent org image and briefs and will call the next case on the calendar


do but then the court ordered it converted anyways without any consideration of the black letter of the law under law versus siegel but that isn't it i mean now that's done right there is next on yeah i'd like to reserve


are not exactly correct so he applied for that st extension they didn't approve that till march th he didn't get it you know but the post it took another ten days to get the notice so it was already pretty close to in the beginning of april by the time he even


this case in this crime and he says ok i'll come by and get whatever information i think it was a take it was taken additional statement or she said she had something she was yeah those actually those words are never used if you look at page ninety two is when


perceiving there is no question but that these debtors were conscious in their disregard of arizona law and jail as private property rights assume that the records courts are conscious trespass finding


conscience i think that's a different process standard but the standards gross disproportionality and i think the plaintiffs are entitled to put in evidence that when the city said


if we have sufficient evidence to cast in doubt the constitutionality of what they're doing and we think we do we're entitled to a trial yes that's their position can you clarify one thing you have brought this as a facial


inside his chambers to say you know i don't think this rule applies to me and so i think i had this debate why for god's sake you just didn't recuse because there are so many cases before the


went to go check on the other baby and so there was nothing there was nothing supporting that she was standing and of course doctor but i also rendered his original opinion based on a four foot counter at the counter in this case was three foot and also he


her there was a period in two thousand and fourteen when he and his family manipulated her and their child in common into deciding to move in with the in laws we discussed that in our brief


found that way they'd be great but yes if they wouldn't be on the do that right now as was the proceeding without jurisdiction that is correct if the a l j lacked jurisdiction they could not come to any determinations on the merits and it would have been dropped and at this point it's


violations were known to your client correct yes your honor however the when there is a violation we have inspectors who have to go out and vest a gate that violation will have to collect evidence once they


stop all that they used to preclude my my counter claim for the breach of the discharge injunction newport quest cited to two paces none of which were person


good morning may it please the court allison i go representing the attorney general i think it's important to clarify what the court is reviewing here the court's reviewing the board's interpretation of


conveyed you don't consider well we don't consider it in this case because we are applying the modified categorical approach which looks at the particular conduct in this case and the conduct in this case was not solicitation so i'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't


awkward or feeling strange when these three men approached his really disingenuous because she was on the street baring her breasts while people were taking pictures and she seemed like she was


different towers but that is the contention that you know even if he was within that vicinity it doesn't put him at the crime scene it doesn't you know there was no victims who identified him so with this evidence it's


the domestic violence act it is the obligation of the person that had the foreign car to notify them correct so it is not a hint to somebody who had the driver's license then did say is resolved


did not deal with it to prove it did not raise the objection that it was in matters observed by law enforcement personnel to rule a different reason the objection that it was a computer generated record of a private corporation


but any plausible explanation for what he was testifying to it's still going to be inadmissible because it was either irrelevant or it


multiple basically versions that were given which version they want to believe but that also goes to argument to yes it is the jury's job to determine which version they're going to believe but if they had the information about her


to the village of oswego and to the oswego police department at trial the state introduced evidence that the defendant sent letters to us we go to these department what we found was in jail on these charges


i think the problem here in this case as opposed to someone


notice from the get go yes but it gets the case where is our authority given that legislative intent to broaden its stance you to say that just anyone who works in the office of the registered agent is going to put forward a


exchange of the the gun from the defendant to sirius regardless when they got to to the police they don't see how they get the police don't see how you know


twenty justices had since question is it's not inherent in the offense so this morning i actually looked up in the dictionary and inherently is an inseparable part and implicit is understood been that directly


word that brings us here we're already paying him an eight d one wage differential and he'll get that for the rest of his life but on an addition of that for the same body part he wants a section eight d to man as a whole


is the same in divisible injury to the same body part it's not i mean if something makes up persons of all some injury makes it up what is it what part of his body was injured when he got the person who all wore nineteen


alive and then see this action by the our police specifically this march nineteenth twenty third twenty thirty deed where she in essence attempts to do the property to herself even though the property was already hers from the previous deed upon the mother's


personal property this deep controls the real property the mother's will accurately reflected the mother's wishes that if you divide equally amongst the two siblings of interest there is a third sibling a son who was not mentioned in the parent's wills who was not included in any of these deeds so the


mention in fact there's no mention of maiming at all but the release if you look at the i don't know ten or so resigning vision to all the other language


motion is the defense bird to show certain things in order for refugees to apply they have to show that the same partners who were involved in both


at the fact of his probationary status is what's relevant so it doesn't matter where he's on probation and these are needling counties and it's you know it's not reasonable to infer that there was


the defendant smells like alcohol the the officer mentions this fact to him twice and that's in the video at three thirty six i believe a non story at four fifty five and five forty


corporation put into that person so whether he was personally involved in this process in these meetings he testified has certainly to recognize on the process how hollow how i still works how the circle is work out how the circulars are the records


deciding there aren't happy with what happens after that certainly in this case the defendant understood everything that was happening at the time of the plea the trial who was in a position to observe the defendant to observe his


standing at that time is on the opposite side of the car on the sidewalk so maybe you know five six feet away so he sees deputies strong go down on his knee is searching underneath he stands up and then he says to deputy


twenty minutes when they're waiting for wind on tammy's waiting for men to come pick him up and take him away that you know again he's not going outside dragging her back to the house to get her to know she has it on the floor


is a windfall this case is going on i've been involved practice a long time usually over one million dollars in damages and fees this this decision in the dismissal of this case


for significantly less after trial i don't you know that i don't have an answer to that i you know


want to blow up the building in front of for law enforcement officers now the discrepancy with regards to repeated threats officer always said after i tried to calm him down and inform him that he had thirty days to hold the sentence he didn't repeat those threats to me the louder


then i agree with you there is a series of bull governance involving schools and they are the school districts they are not reaching all forms of government and the notion that district with fifty five apparently


that was erroneous or should not have been relied upon it's there for the commission to decide and that's where you get into the way to correct we do believe however that the opinions expressed and the difference between dr


other than the clearly the name of the attorney and a phone number and address the deputy clerks signed it and it says i say it's a risk at all i


joint venture which is essentially a partnership and partners are agents of each other and they can buy each other and this is exactly the opposite of what's provided for in this contract and this was a t w component part of the contract


those findings and then you look at the result that's the abuse of discretion here because no reasonable person could read those findings and then come to the conclusion of a court made on the division of property here


nothing in the record to support that his information was inaccurate well he did he introduce the concept of a critical difference between the browser cache in the thumb case or is this something you introduced pursued


effect as of when the obligation is filed so what do they do they switched it again now we wait for oh twenty years of solid waste plan which no longer existed to twenty years of a conceptual playing requirement


bet that it showed that there was more than one assailant and that the victim in that case had been perhaps transported in a different route we know the history proves that the dog here


contrary well if i can go on in space see two sixty six of the writer he was asked what his understanding of zero tolerance meant and he said system sensors was zero tolerance you know when they came into work that law i


on i have a two fold argument for that to my first question would be that it is sufficient on the face so merely examining the suit because shows compliance my second argument is because of the circumstances


it against the defendant's claim of self defense and for that reason i think it was vital to refute that theory to the extent council would have been able to move to the second claim in the ninety second court


to the public to the only applies when you supposedly is acting within its role as a government and in performing activities that are traditionally governmental and i think inspecting the


if the city accepted mr paddlers application and came out and did the evaluation and found that it was not his roof was in compliance with a particular code but then for some


with her about why she didn't sign it is a principle we don't know the answer that all she can say is that the company doesn't exist anymore i don't know and i would be speculating maybe she's concerned about some possible bay group c issues or some other unrelated personal financial issues but the


this act even apply here in order for in order for the for more safety administration provision that insulates these employers from from meeting the types of statements that were made here is that you


charmer upon which this individual was convicted of a domestic battery which under federal law says he's not allowed to possess a weapon federally now then say that we set up a program


muscle on the beach or at the health club but rather citizens in ordinary walks of life no one has identified a location a job that requires a bench press of seventy five percent of


citizens and walks of life but i just say citizens performing their jobs it's this is an ordinary walks of life i would say they athletes are extraordinary extraordinary they are beyond the ordinary so i don't think the


nothing unique about this situation to police work and certainly to the extent that there may be something different about it is a level parsing that then would eliminate


after that he is sent for a credible fear interview and there is a in the record on page seven hundred and thirty two there is the credible fear interview transcript it's not a direct transcript it's but he is again asked


have called around and they are they do they are they will number two i think that in light of the failures of these ads the adverse credibility terminations could deem mr ashton credible and if it does that that's a that's a huge that's


this marriage was entered into in good faith so in other words the judge referred to this testimony because it was the only testimony regarding the petitioner's intent with her relationship she drew if i meant to understand it


continued to october twenty seventh she was represented by counsel ok so she's continued so ok so but is there anything the reflect that she was ever admitted or denied or


apply for any kind of spousal visa based on her husband because all her husband has as is is is just some is administrative closure as opposed to i do not know the answer that question i do not know yet that question so but do you know why the government is so interested in removing her but not


rehabilitated on the one hand but we see his record and his record weighs more heavily than that fact phone so we're going to find that he's still going to be a danger to the community and therefore we're


clear air deference that has never been how the board reviews an immigration judge's findings in the context of discretion is another prediction of future events a fact finding i thought we did did have a law on that and i would have thought this was a prediction about future events


believe there's a little time left for


to suppress hearing but we are not one hundred percent sure that's why i thought judge bail was asked you know but it was introduced as a part of the plea right it was introduced as the factual basis at the police


more than nine months is it well let's see there's like so july six two thousand and sixteen well you said sixty and i thought you said fifteen right but that's when you know it's him a nine months after the one year expired yes your honor


became time barred and in the gonzalez case had nothing to do with that because you he would have used the logic of gonzalez to get the result that he wanted to to get away from the second or successive petition problem right


government in mexico doesn't have a foster care system and they consider children with disabilities to be unadoptable the d r i reports note in a footnote and the immigration judge highlighted this that of those people and institutions


with certain items such as the bylaws of this organization that she said that she created that she said she gave to did ministry of justice in armenia as well as photographs that demonstrate police presence at rallies when she couldn't come up with


court there's the lack of cooperation but there's also the demeanor evidence which the board agreed with with respect to the immigration judge's findings as well as the inconsistent and the demeanor evidence could you read for me and basically the demeanor evidence you just heard she was a


judge to consider the evidence and that informs fit to social group


was credible were we consider her to be credible is not right i think you can consider her to be credible because the b a a didn't well actually i think what it is is you look to the i do use decision


invoked for someone who's previously applied for decide has been denied and then has been deported that issue is still open that's exactly right your honor and i'm trying to figure out in this case what do we do


forty five is a transcript of the june first two thousand and sixteen hearing where the government said with regards to paragraphs one through twenty three of the declaration i would ask that those be given full weight and this is the government speaking to the government because it was our lawyer speaking but


scientific analysis any ph with respect to e p a is evidence in two thousand and sixteen it did field studies for two fields one in texas and one in georgia


on this for a reason because it wanted to be able to take a look there and at two thousand eight hundred number nine this regulation expires by its very terms so we're want


there because he's a very i think it's legitimate that these people are persecuted relatives of his have been killed apparently and now he's the christian i guess there's no question that he has produced his certificate that shows that he is you know a christian at


statute that would prevent e p a from looking at the science again in the objections process but going specifically to the legal issue of whether or not the denial order met the legal standards under the


is now properly before the panel to decide what would you like that decision to be go to the merits of the case order a short time frame for the e p a to respond to the objections well i think the will certainly not go


just looking at the case law he he committed an offense that was clearly identified by the cal supreme court in a published decision as one that constituted an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of the


that true though when we're talking about cat versus asylum because i don't think that with kat that was the point of the judge smith opinion was a judgement what was your honor i believe i have it here front of me but i


opposing counsel set forth there are two issues here and as to the st phase record of conviction clearly shows that you eighty eight was the underlying according to the minutes from his criminal proceeding he pleaded


make a motion for summary judgment to the immigration judge and if the immigration judge finds you're not credible or finds that the documents are more credible than your testimony the government can then rest can then rest or


than the name she knew was his name what does that signify it signifies nothing your honor in terms of an affirmative act it signifies nothing she asked one question now the she stated why did


didn't pursue the case and that was shown to be enough and in contrast there's no i didn't find any cases where there was actually a court case a conviction well that's not held here i mean that's the problem here there


brought into court for that very purpose and you know that is i think what do i do process protection that petitioners had had in this case may ask questions going back to the credibility determination by the immigration judge


yes the immigration judge says she was not sufficiently incredible she was a sufficiently credible witness so there was an explicit adverse credibility finding so the board deemed her testimony as true as this court would


i j there was questions about challenging the heightened discretionary standard and when the case was brought there was the i d f decision where it looked at the merits of that issue


exclusively done based on motions practice the courts almost never have resorted to doing that without a record of a motion and so if you look at the history of the way that this regulation started and the way that it's been used


does forty two does to correct and if any term and that's not a clarification of the law but rather a change in the law what arguments are you left with but we're still arguing that the that the conviction itself should not


judge that is what that is our st argument in this case is that the legal sentence renders the conviction invalid for immigration purposes the nd argument is that even if the conviction itself is


property values and you know again this issue when you when you look at what's going to happen if you're building a jet port in a residential area you are going to add new ois an air pollution


opinion but is optional position to isolated corruption or to the views of an isolated official usually does not constitute an expression of public opinion and so that case really has nothing to do whatsoever with whether


search for his brother he testified that he went to hospitals to jails and to the state run work part of the state attorney's office to give the state authorities his name and his address and told them the numbers of the cartel had taken his brother as a result of his actions the cartels


a very credible evidence that the i g found included mr artist testimony which stated that he told the authorities that it was the cartels who took his brother and when asked why do you think they will harm you he said i


embellish in fact the judge stated it was evident from their demeanor in court and the expressions on their faces that they were goals of graded not of testifying but of mexico and went on to explain how important all of their


important to bear in mind that this case the mission that the board just came up with is not only going to affect people in immigration proceedings this is this definition that the jury came up with


the gangs assume that any young male who lives in an area where the gang is active is a member of the gang is it true that all males are members of the gang of the neighborhood in which they


something on nothing in terms of whether he was in fact doing what he said he did so the comparison is so if you for example let's say we get rid of all of the very very


for the government i think that you want to hear about the prejudice issue so let me st talk i think it's the best part of your argument you may want to defend what the immigration judge did here but i wouldn't start with that


of religion because a person could genuinely hold a religious belief and suffer persecution and maybe not fully understand all the tenets of the religion but this is a little different and that he says about being a political belief for which he was persecuted for which he claimed his


mean if it turns out that kroger is allowing people in the food stamp program to purchase beer why don't i have a right to know as a member of the public you're under the u s d a old ready in forces those policy guidelines and


this court has to reverse or not has to say that i would submit based on the agreement that both parties say the collateral software doesn't apply and there is no case law that i found that supports that position would have to at least reverse the district court on that finding but i believe


three eleven one of the three by that amendment in two thousand and nine created a statutory mandate before two thousand and nine ackman i don't doubt that the brain or case probably was right and it


that he would be a citizen so does that answer your question your honor that it's not unusual for people to have issues with law enforcement where they're not in


however the law does mean that if you made a finding that's appealable and therefore re man to let the district judge now with the benefit there are immense response decide ok i've entered because you were apologising this man had to go in now


no assessment by h s c that she met those four but word for word you find that language in record axis fifteen the justification for higher so why are there these contradictions time and time


this this position


that we will i mean frankly you know you're calling it's a motion to reopen but it's really a motion for a declaration you know for an exit inquiry in the st sentence you're not trying to reopen anything except the merits but i


well you know that's what makes this case unusual that we don't just have the complaint per se we have attached to the complaint this report by this mr clark or officer


cam video taken in the officers car of the incident yes your honor there is a dash cam video that was made publicly available it is not the complete video and it does have cuts right on the dash


in the emergency room she ends up being released returned to the county jail she spends three weeks there waiting she's told that she's going to see each she needs to see her orthopedic surgeon and then three weeks


rights under the act now to try to go ahead and make a more restrictive with something stronger than deliberate the difference would be go going counter to what congress


all right this would


purported violation and again in this instance i think is he is particularly distance from that because he makes a circular based in the board and i'm not saying this by way of insulation i'm saying that the board then itself cannot make that


case unfortunately the secretary keeps saying over and over now that that's not what the regulation means we don't think the secretary is entitled to walk that back regarding a couple of points your honor


i've signed and i believe i don't have a right from me but i believe the standard according to the u s supreme court in andersen versus liberty is no reasonable trier of fact who'd have found for the non movement


case of discrimination is that the plaintiff has to show that they were either replaced and that they were treated differently from similarly situated individuals outside of the protect class under nearly identical circumstances the rest of the evidence in the record is that the plaintiff was not replaced that's


sentencing when the whole forfeiture issue comes up he doesn't say wait what happen to that preliminary order yes ok so it's reviewed for plain error and in light of that if the primary purpose of that pre sentencing order is to give him notice the indictment gave


monitor his bedroom the way the house was situated watched and could see everything that was happening ellis from from the house cover the crack house trailer and that catches the house yes it did your own whatever sort of say that and did you have any


unfairness here because he was told about the hearing in a different document than the notice to appear in just one way to conceptualize that is suppose the statute just said there's a notice to appear that doesn't have a date time then you get a notice that hearing that tells you that in time would anyone


exactly what judge wilkinson in the four circuit said when you have a statute in workers compensation that you get says you get paid x there is no doubt that that falls within the expressed text of the preemption provision under the ag it's so it's it's that


importantly that the action was reasonably calculated to stop the harassment now prior to october thirtieth two thousand and fifteen julian swain yes testified that there


company that matters it's well you're exercising control over this one decision about whether you file bankruptcy and even that isn't right because we didn't have and do not have control over bankruptcy we have the ability to say


emissions overall but it will not accurately target which sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute to those visibility impairments so i would submit that the court has to address two questions that i'll


assigned emission limits under bart at the next step step three which is what environmental petitioners challenge that's where emission limits are set and a fine tuned analysis takes place than that looks at it all the


year they get ignored under that analysis so e p a made that decision using its expertise in scientific and technical modeling to correct for any overly conservative bias in the


every reasonable progress plan to include every part of the regional haze plan to include elements to address the reasonable progress requirements of the act and then finally i


crying but not complaining of anything she was crying upset that she'd been placed in jail but she wasn't expressing any pain or any any symptoms at that time and i don't want you to forget that because this is a helpful chronology but what


it was part of her when the when the criminal district court said you're going to go to jail now she got said and she was tasered at that point but she's telling now the nurse i was tasered and of course that may account for the neck i was on the back


thousand and had it been done so he would have a stronger case because he would have the testimony of his father but he didn't now he says he didn't know that he wasn't told he could do the so called again that's i don't know that we're going to


helicopter pilot was injured and died because of some mistake possibly by a civilian but that was clearly in the mission of the coast guard the mission of the coast guard is to go


repeatedly called her on that they knew where she lived they knew how to find her they knew how to find her children there pressure in the street as she was leaving her mother in law's house and surrounded her there's no doubt here that they had the means to track her down and issue threats to her and


likelihood of confusion test in private litigation it's another thing to be able to let a state and speech based on a likelihood or a potential for confusion the supreme court in this court have not permitted that but the first moment are when the federal


more rigorous than a private litigation the likelihood of confusion analysis and trading or even of private litigation leads to an injunction yes because and the likelihood of confusion alice as the survey evidence comes in as one of seven


better his lot here after he lost in two thousand and fifteen this is not some procedural change there is a procedural change in the statute that is how you actually file for recognition at thirty six point zero zero four one this is


ok the mississippi the cases that i've cited geno vs harrington says that just because you're a spouse doesn't mean you are in a fiduciary and undo influence you are required to


happened in six weeks during those six weeks craig in a later met was gone eight times in four different cities and signed nine financial documents for each of those


that the dippers that i think were disinterested they have no stake in the outcome but they were only present for a few minutes and was hardly in a position to show evidence of either good faith or have gone on and


five years now there's other problems caused by the fact in two thousand and fourteen the plan stopped but it did fully fifty five million fully cover back the money they owe you know every five years right and that's the issue the male and


responsibility is to the class members we have an abuse of discretion standard in this case and the key question about the fairness of this settlement is what would objectors be able to recover if this case goes to trial


that the senate tell you police department is well aware of the culture and practices described here in that it is failed to correct these abuses and abuses and has failed to conduct proper training so there are your honor there are allegations


says i question that science even though it's indisputable mr horvath testified in his deposition for the nd flu vaccine the fire chief said you can be exempt from this but if you keep pushing this exemption stuff and you're going to have an issue number three where


you're claiming the dates that you claim that you worked them in the amount you're seeking you won't find very many plaintiffs who answer that question in in a meaningful manner


the attorney general's immunity is waived and therefore we may proceed on our case so we would ask the court to affirm that decision a judge sparks so that we may proceed and have our day in court onus i have a question though about other circuits


evacuee i believe that the court recognized it out which is the basis of morris is not controlling on the court if i remember correctly but they that's not an on bond


on that is consistent with it not being intentional fire and the jury was instructed that they were to decide to start with this presumption that it was not intentional fire with


applied for a michigan warrant based on purported violations of michigan law and yet the district court held that that officers knowledge of the defendant's compliance with state law was irrelevant to the


inquiry as to whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant we believe that this is reversible error and we asked this court to reverse on that grounds the first step of the inquiry is whether federal law


arguments to the briefs and try to explain why the district court was correct to deny suppression because the warrant was adequate and the suppression motion was not


and all sorts of marijuana evidence in their polearm but they did not leave the port they didn't have a search warrant they were invited to look around the property and as far as they knew there was this garden and


respect to balancing what i would say here is that the law is not that every time a case goes to pickering ballot saying you have to have to say i think you say i was i just said it's very difficult to do it it's just


well i think this court there isn't a document that that defines that but it's very clear that the michigan gaining control board by statute does enforce laws if there's a law


superintending control over agreements which at this time there was none because there hadn't been no discipline and i don't have jurisdiction over your client's appeal i'm sorry how do we have jurisdiction over your appeal it's not qualified immunity we have


because we have all these other tools that serve that purpose the problem here is that the primary tool to serve that purpose with respect to testing the reliability of adam's alleged confession namely cross examination of adams


consistent with the autopsy if they didn't acknowledge as we cited in our brief that it was fundamentally inconsistent with the original autopsy that ruled out ligature strangulation and the alleged confession includes


garage and their trucks and their doors on our equipment and they are running constantly because they have to work on with that now before he applied for that yes but remember they were there is a distinction he


why should he get and thousand dollars extra for a job for which he's not qualified there are that's not unusual sometimes people try to but they're half a little higher than they can reach and that's not an unusual position or situation but clearly he was not qualified


fact and there was some response from the city that look our sidewalks are only so big if you put it on the sidewalk people are going to have to move around you into the streets etc and so there was some concern about that and the district court found that that was a legitimate purpose


that they that they actually had to move within a particular period of time i'm sorry and so with respect to the particular ordinance and we're left wondering how far do you have to move and i understand that isn't


be eligible to be the police chief in the city of spring but the state's evidence on those points was very very thin to say the least there was no confession there were no eyewitnesses there was no real forensic evidence there was no medical evidence


not how we intended the deal and that's not what we meant by the deal that's not what the words meant to us the words meant were given this transaction and everything for that's where the focus was so if i could i'd like to jump to damages because i feel like


the case especially under the special circumstance of this case being that it is a multi defendant trial and the evidence the evidence that came in were evidence of phone calls between all other members that


petitioner did use a legal writer and despite all of her limitations she consistently was able to file pleadings in the district court and the sixth circuit including a timely app paid me a statistic and and all she had to do is file a motion to extend that's another


agreement and bootstrap that that last phrase in that exclusion to say you've got to cover the case in effect negating the coverage grant and that's exactly


you're correct what i will say is this the diction i don't know if the dictionary definition defines pistol that way but we do know that many gun owners would fire a pistol with two hands and i don't know if it's necessarily the case i don't know what our


additional quantity of asphalt that was used that day and we did that every day thereafter for the next seven days for the balance of the work so they have been writing every day for i don't have from them is any well you don't do the contract


because we could not anticipate in advance of doing the work with the cost would be there but there was there's clearly only one field directive that's in the record correct correct and that field directive is specifically limited to to a particular circumstance at a particular time


refused to consider that and i'm not sure that you're understanding me by that but this this is a difficult contract to read and difficult contract to deal with and my answer just to your question is that five point four doesn't govern this


obviously proceed accordingly now in this case girkins bed documents were extremely limited i think they produced two pages in response to less else discovered requests and it's


there's a recent case from our circuit that deals with leaving a secure area


court was wrong and that there should have been a different outcome and i would submit that those cases come in to general categories in one category of those cases the argument


court has never held that the confrontation clause and titles a criminal defendant to introduce extrinsic evidence for impeachment purposes and it's clear that the evidence at play here would have been extrinsic evidence it would had been introduced to


of the the witnesses the first part of the statements of their statements they would have and i mean that i mean that's not the most compelling you know demonstration is strings of evidence i've ever come across and well if


that would be the second relief the third of five is that evidence compels a finding that the denial of the motion to reopen was manifestly contrary to law because we know further fact that the board did not consider the whole motion now


argue this case before you today if i could you and i would like three minutes thank you this appeal involves two decisions from the district court and i suppose it's easy to


availability of housing but it did not in this case and i don't think there's any dispute about that well it's true that they got to move in but after that it offers well that was an easy number


from a qualified immunity issue in this race discrimination correct my time is almost up if there are any other questions that i can answer be happy to do so well next time would make it easier if you had


case found that there was probable cause to arrest these folks and prosecute he also found that my clients were involved in the prosecution of these individuals and i would also submit to the court that with all due respect to the palace counsel that


accident by alleging that they didn't even touch him or joe was didn't even touch him putting him into the car to me if there is an incredible piece of


five extra words in your case would be gone right well it would be gone this this particular argument about what the judge really meant would be certainly got the argument that there was support for the conclusion would be gone because their sport he's just explained all his reasons


pushes this to a more serious case that there is a substantial need to provide an adequate to turns into protect the public from further crimes i think the court did we re mandy can easily explain that the court


on the absence of a breach of contract claim it would withstand analysis the trial court veered off into the direction of an equitable stoppel theory in


at that point you know are you did he threat is that where he threatened us sanctions or something he threatened me with sanctions when i persisted in the question of reading the deposition and the evidence ok even though the polling was in that i was a little different yeah ok


after happened here we now can send it back and you back if you call when that's one possibility goes back and i can't imagine doing this again without looking at the so security record getting all that evidence but i realize they're not the same standards i realize one doesn't control the other


what potential claims are we've been injured to the tune of one hundred forty four million if we are have forced to give back the money i suppose if that's the answer to your question but we don't so this all arises out of different theories under which you might be able to


get to on redirect is is it true that when someone was falsely being accused of engaging in sexual conduct with you you told the truth because that's what happened below and their


there are there collateral consequences you don't know i'm not sure there could be but i'm not going to say that there are to this panel on this case of he doesn't get out of prison and i'm not going to be voting or you know have


that two thousand and five phone call in no way could that be characterized as a final agency action i mean it is not in and out accepting i just want to be very clear i got it clear on that subject you know and


can't articulate a injury to a legally protected interest because contract law does not compensate thirty party beneficiaries for injuries when the contracting parties breach the contract


follows that the didn't follow sets or the discretion be up to the bureau of prisons but there's never been a case where this would be an automatic and second sentence and it's not accurate to say that the the district court could simply refrain from doing anything and allow nature to take its course and


cluster teacher going from classroom to classroom teaching those gray it's she's that these germs are causing me to be sick and missing school please could you accommodate me by allowing me to change rd th and th grade on the merits that


first they point to the owner's testimony that he wanted to reopen the store but the owner didn't provide any plans or any arrangements that were actually be being undertaken to bring the store back into the stream of commerce in


permits i'm sorry the building they were posted on a on a a board that was that was outside of the building but there was no testimony you know regarding any work part permits frankly during trial


saying about what she can and cannot do that's an issue right but there was no it's whether what he relied on in light of the objective test that's starting or not i'm not


it's living there with their children as i say is not what the statute contemplates the statute there is there any authority actually as in new york law saying that the criminal trespass law doesn't apply to


would who actually possessed the requisite intent would make a plan set a specific date and then never again never follow through on that day and then would never come back and talk about it and


is not simply wrong that is that you know we can certainly we could say that edna objected to we could certainly read it seems to me the judge's instruction as having been runny is but but


right if i understood your question correctly your honor there's two components to restitution this is point which i might as well jump to with you so there's the restitution related to the to the segments which we were just discussing and then


well he didn't do that the way the court has told it to hold a told it to do right by you know going out that reduction and rather than backdating it and clearly that's something that council maybe should


dramatically with the district court was whether there was in peach a bull information and this court held in mahaffey in two thousand and twelve that when withheld material is both exculpatory and impeachable


talking over email before the st issuance all about how they they're they want there to get their hands on discretionary liquidity honey liquid you know liquid cash this is what they're waiting for the st issuance and then two


not going to try to enforce the time limits this time but


just back up for a nd sure issue of mutual mistake it seems not have been raised by any of the parties argued and there was no motion reconsideration for reconsideration file after the


things materials created or shared in the process of this joint venture and there is a claim for breach of contract related to the app ellie's improper use of those material that's exactly


litigation the harrington patent and the subsequent discovery that this business opportunity was in the public domain became a very big part of the proceedings so


if i can go back to the bernie words bernie against buzzword case that i had started with it's a situation where dates included by a notary weren't in weren't legible but the rest of the information was there or there some other


the song that's factors that are applicable here are the comparison between what is being state the other state litigation as being in state and in this action and whereas there is no other other that


is that even if there even if we assume and make the credible assumption and give the benefit of every incredible doubt to the appellants position the fact that your honor pointed out he failed to read it


sixty months plus there was sixteen months to run consecutively to another case your honor and that's why it ended up being one hundred and twenty dollars at the net effect the judge was taking that into account for the the pharmacy burglaries case that this defendant was already involved in


by this provision will be limited to the portion of that calculation that is inconsistent with the stipulation that applies whether the term has to run consecutively or concurrent and is


rent stabilization the month of dirty case the fart in case of a case is that the bankruptcy was can't be used to and the protections of rent regulation this is a only this is only novel


you're maybe jumping the gun a little bit because your adversary is attacking the entire regulatory system and you're assuming that there's a valid system can be that can be valid and in many many


in if he knew that they were coming in because there was an allegation that he was a felon which he knew from the beginning that he was not he said from the beginning was not a felon he would have never invited them in and nobody would ever in fight for example mailman in or


explained to us by the government why they don't want to do that for the record makes evident that what what they have sought to do was to explain their actions in terms of a legal


certain of the representations being made to prospective opt outs were misleading we went to the court and we had we obtained in order that compelled those entities who were true who were soliciting opt outs to send out corrective


harper counts for which there was a hung jury ok but if there had been a conviction with respect to the new defendants or with respect to the other crime the singer


that's the only reason his position was in fact advanced by his save some time for


trademark and that is not recognized as an anti competitive effect for and i trust law which is i think the way they did it in clorox and what is the threshold for an unusual if there are i mean


not getting as much customers because they're not doing this every day as it was this agreement they signed but there are a bunch of other retailers that are bidding on the keyword so why isn't it the case that those customers that otherwise went to a


hearing on restitution or something that is anything but very narrow in scope given mr adams propensity for procedural mishaps in this case and the fact that the district court's intention to


fully to the extent that he should have been that's with that was without not within the permissible range of those decisions to deny the continuance nothing further thank you


to establish that it was quite probable that the false information affected the court that's not what this court said in king the whole rather this court said we're period the statement of robin and the


restitution as who or what entity the i r s ok so it's clear from the judgment that the restitution is for the account of the internal revenue service that is correct that's a matter of public record that is correct


foolish to to ask him why he had the gun because it's criminal nature should have been obvious to the officers and men it will more or your honor see my time


not only so that's the plain language just says it right there but the other point i'd like to and the cries is that silence here speaks volumes you know our congress is obviously concerned as it rightly should about the imposing a five thousand dollars


the judge the legal impediments was that he can't do it he can do it under the statute but is it reasonable i'm here to say it's not reasonable not that there is a statute doesn't provide


there isn't and so here what they're trying to do is get money damages but they know they can't get money damages because amar makes that clear ammara tells us money damages are for the terms of the plan and that's not what they


that it could have and i'm quoting you could have made this motion by way of a twelve b six at the inception of the case that was in two thousand and six the inception of this case is it your view that this


discretion which is the applicable standard now a couple of other points but i'd like to address that mr press has focused on today st the suggestion that judge berman somehow was acting to insulate


relevant questions to the jury the court must view the fact in the best possible way for the plaintiff so i want to focus the court specifically on the nd teasing in this case because we see that is the narrowest ground for reversal that prevents the court from


because we find that mens rea is reckless or intentional and where does the district court get the ability to say things like there is no basis to find that tenet was an unreasonable officer how


judgment on this basis or anything like that consider the image of true big standing over matthew jones face down on the ground not posing any threat taser prongs stuck in his back one thousand five hundred volts of electricity pulsating through his nervous system


so chaotic that the full faith and credit clause didn't even apply to custody terminations back then so to say that the new york legislature would pass and make affect of the u c c j and specifically provide provisions at seventy five


relevant to the merits you still had to consider it in assessing price impact on a rule you want to rule before you look at the experts you want to rule that says that there are certain types of statements that as a matter of law can


in which he placed significantly more weight on the fact that there was an allegation against an individual employee mr torres and no weight whatsoever about the significance of the allegations against the company and how central it was and the precise form they took i mean there's a lot


is there's no


deception by omission claim on the exercise issue as well as well as a literal falsity so ultimately what the court really did was it wasn't just that it said you can't have literal falsity you can have deception by omission


it's not in the very satcher granting the power i would like to mention the power for either statutes which no one seems to argue about to appeal if you miss your time limit to


that means is while it may communicate the agency's position on a matter it's not final that it may change there's no one for spain action that needs to be taken and so as a result of the lack of enforcement action there's no legal


the complaints a little interesting to me because it says something like well we were doing business for years and they said we're not going to supply you anymore unless you read of these terms there's anything in this record it discloses why that occurred nothing in the


counsel why why didn't the parties ever formalize the the contract just make sure it was a traditional contract i know in paragraph thirty one and thirty two we've heard a lot from opposing counsel about what he believes


o'clock in the morning and this deserted area the lady was a passenger she didn't do anything wrong she was just a passenger in a car being driven by someone who was inebriated she asked the officer i'm five


ways you know if you're going to actively lie to a police officer and as a result escape arrest you can dent on the other hand say well you know what fine i evaded arrest but i got in trouble


proposition it's consistent with all other authority on this point that you actually under subsection c you need to establish a legal violation you can state that there was a good faith belief that you were violating the law and therefore stay to protect a claim for protected


appeals more recent decision and will feel superior court and the supreme judicial court of massachusetts decision in citi field versus national fire insurance company but a bit talk to me a little bit about this because i understand getty's


trade usage of those terms to the policy here and i would point out that the factory mutual understanding of the supply chain industry is expressed on the face of the policy itself this is not a party that's come into this with no understanding


to be knowledge of this isn't there a general principle of insurance law that insurers are deemed to have knowledge of the industry that they have chosen to


me and saying that things hanging over your head and you better not to quote fuck with me or else i'm going to get you so she was aware that this employee had previously made these threats against his supervisor and based


and there's significant evidence that the city was dishonest regarding the reasons that that put her on administrative leave and the reasons about not giving her the administrative file not notifying the employees under non contact


non contact order as opposed to a you're not supposed to discuss the investigation but could still talk about other subjects that detail i do not know but it


in the opening brief page fifteen through eighteen talking about the qualification and also


running mr frank specifically stated that what he does interim seven interview is to determine whether someone beats the qualifications for the position that's the way that he


where he disclosed that he was deaf and said that ok let's set up an interview for this guy this was an email dated april second miss o'brien's response to that e mail


thank you and good morning may it please the court my name is robert sherlock i am counsel for the plaintiff or later dr david to tan in this case this case arises out of the dismissal


checklist is not to have a doctor or a claims violence make a new diagnosis it's to look at the record in the first phase it's just to look for dates was there a claim was there


why did they consider a new regulation doing so and reduce controlling and it's correct there was another decision that this district court here explicitly followed as well as the district court in in read incorrectly follett it was


council my colleague made the same distinction when he was discussing read and we had referenced that and in our papers being the key distinction between zero grams and


we're right in the middle of the response was on one of three please make the check payable to yellow book deliver it to our attention the settlement agreement will be finalized and delivered to your attention during the first part of next


understand it in some cases can support and inference of causation but it's just one factor as to whether we should draw that inference


respect to the protected activity in the in the wrongful discharge claim we can if you want to address that since that was the focus of your your honour's questions i'll address a few points to that first of all he doesn't establish that he engaged in protected activity because both under


required to open at least two accounts per month when he failed to do so he was put on a performance improvement plan and that performance improvement plan in february two thousand and thirteen specifically required that he had to open two accounts that


passed void and into an analysis a phone it doesn't say even a reasonable time the motion to rule sixty b must be made within a reasonable time when you suggest so it has to be a reasonable time right but the point is the silver analysis


who had possession of the treatment had direct contact in association with the defendant and based on that direct contact and direct association defendants had access to areas that allege their direct relationship


show copying so at some point you have to show that there was actual copying absolutely but that's why discovery so important if you played this chain between this network of people inside that gives rise to a reasonable possibility but you can't say as a matter of law


because if you compare the works and compare that expression in the works they are different but see that the problem i'm having with that argument too is that the


now all of the other causes of action are just conceptually impossible to sever from that breach of contract cause of action and if i can in one second for example the fraudulent conveyance cause of action


source after a trial if the standards were the same there'd be no special significance to the prosecutor's obligation to serve the cause of justice and if the state's role were adopted here it would similarly accord no special significance and would undermine


the relief and i think that the reasoning that he applied was i'm not going to grant relief because one of wasn't miletus governor and to it when you know i don't think it matters anyway so those were his those were his reasons i think that was a ruling on the merits of the court if probably before


i'd like to emphasize three points one that this is an attack on the national roster the aaa maintains the national roster and its maintenance of the roster and be arbitration an arbitration


by the court that says something to the opposite defendant's argument belies the whole purpose of gap in the securities laws and that's to present the financial statements fairly and accurately to investors


expected to be in a report which it wasn't wasn't there testimony like that yes or no yes ok so there isn't that isn't that enough to doubt the veracity of what he says about being told that you know if the policy was practice would be to put it in a report he didn't put it in a report he can't remember who


agreed to a binding mediation contract provides the mediation decisions are binding once you agree to mediation you agree don't binding but with respect your honor we disagree the contract says if


maybe the struggle and i hope i'm understanding and i'm going in the same place i think that judge her it's going focusing on the question of whether there's probable cause that they committed a crime let's focus on the facts what facts that


here page thirty four and it talks about when you have a staff a general statute in a specific statute how the specific want to supposed to apply in the context of the more general rule in that the specific one is going to be


of those decisions because they're not the one selecting the board you can't even if you were to structure the meeting differently let's assume i mean i don't see what the problem would be in just having a straight school board


i'm not sure i know the answer to is it possible for a corporation not to have a principal place


it's your case the same as to all we have we have non m d s early on in the process particularly the first practitioner who's dr bell regularly regularly beats with your client


point out to your honor that we weren't saying that a pure worldwide injunction is something out there which allows a there is something but not for the trust not understand how that that's good then you get back into it as to what we're talking about before


any benefit to the class and to that because there were other objectors that the arguments that i made were not in any way novel and therefore again i was not entitle to recover the attorney's fees that were incurred