grant you it's a distinction i think it's an important distinction that there was a creditor debtor relationship the money and that does seem to be disputed but she also said please stop calling and it sounds to me like if i'm understanding correctly going to the rosenthal act


make that they shouldn't do it anyway that this man has been fighting this battle for twelve years to try to get this all straight now that he was forced to take the the pension early pension just to be


what is true what is false we don't know and the court decided he cannot believe a word mr right now we've crossed the threshold we know he's not believable the court dismissed the case in your favor what were you seeking


thing blows up in their face and we're going to always had to deal with the problem how we got to show meth induced rage and so they would have taken all the discovery they did was focused at this cumulative making them


ok but again whether or not she went over there there is no allegation that she asked anything that or more importantly the key factor in


preclusion apply here but does the fact that the first litigation was an arbitrary have anything to do with this why are we in the middle of that corporal stop well your honor it's an interesting question the answer is there there were two separate summary


them from going forward at this point and rehashing this poor c p i provision fair market rent there


honor looking at the type of genetic material specified in that agreement is a factual issue and the type of the type of genetic material my client up right my client submit in those agreements only concerned


that was not criminalized under sorta sorta didn't exist at the time he engaged in it that now his criminal consequences and the gold case we need addressed ex post facto and again i take your point judge keenan this


that argument was squarely rejected by the supreme court in scope in fact if the court looks at page three seventy five in the scott opinion you'll see that that was actually the dissents argument in scott that the parole officer turns


and i think the final point that i would make on this particular issue believe is it is a point that judge richardson was making when the power house counsel was making the argument it's true doswell and even ferguson those cases didn't create new rights


may please the court will lewis on behalf of the united states and just to go straight to just me in march question about salts in south carolina i want to be very clear on our position that simple assault force or attempted that while resisting arrest would not be


answer that question king thank you for any questions that


seizure of the people out in the field to determine whether they were involved in the shooting and thereby contain the danger to the public to the officers and the people out of that


everybody on that road right even just because you think it's likely not that like there's you know a crime occurring or may occur again or there may be retaliation which we have here but just that there's a


eight thousand one hundred twenty five dollars so it's it is ain't it's a misconception suggests that payments on an interest only loan don't affect equity they do affect that route dollar not


frankly and i i speculated a little bit in the district court but i have no idea why this statute was an act it was an act of years after mendoza lopez mendel's lopez had been decided but it explicitly


we find it slaps probably said it's problematic all right and it would be and so i appreciate the distinction between sort of the term addressing the certain term consider and how that might be different i think that the to me the fred the breath of fresh


i'd like to walk you through the district court's reasons for imposing its significant marriott's beginning with the st and most troubling reason which came when the court address the need to determine and protect the public the court


in the fact that the defendant had reentered for family purposes the district court found that the aggravating factors in that case including defend its membership of a street gang outweighed the mitigating factors in the variance was upheld on appeal mitigating


put in jail for objected it was interesting your honor i mean there are some times where i think mr murphy objected to or asked about a closing charge and the judge immediately cut him off said no we're not going there i don't know why i can't tell you what


it was uncontroverted that the individuals who saw the warrant also executed the warrant so they were executing the warrant based on information that they had provided the magistrate and also information that they


tell your employees it's going to be a while you're not getting the car back right away but at some point that car was going to go back either to the rental company where they would have issued a consent the worker bee and they actually did in this case that they later this car would have been taken off the millers


challenging that the court did not provide mr mckay a reasonable opportunity to be heard with regard to sentencing but following this court's precedents as recently restated and peterson but blue as


a periodic review so this court has no information to determine not judge duffy did abuses discretion because this court has no information to determine whether or not judge duffy had a legal reason to reject


with the conclusion the lot of the fact the guy was from literally right away is bolstered by his written explanation of the sentence where he says it's because the defendant and or west virginia and


reiterate some of the questions that you were asking mr murawski about whether or not the judge could also consider we still have evidence that the defendant immediately prior to the drug transaction entered the apartment but


any other questions thank you


that it just seems i mean this is this case sort of well one part of this case returns on this question about whether we're required whether a district court is required to make a defendant have an actual showing of the mental


implicated we don't have that here we don't have here where that evidence that evidence of detective shelby's falsity was available free trial in any context that evidence was only available when she took the stand and


depending on how heinous the crime is that's that's now under these two in this case the really the crux of this case comes down to this the district court held that no remedy hearing was


underlying order of removal might not be just review but the process for reinstating it most certainly is so an individual may be able to say well it to reinstate your movie you have to show that i entered the country unlawfully but an individual can challenge that and say i did


in a general business and they're all things the defendants have glossed over to this point today let's talk about materiality a little bit here and i think that you have covered this relates to the bank quite frankly when we talk about


day of the delivery in this case i think there was testimony came from the direction of to take to get there but again i was speaking rather on on the issue of the connection of where all these intercepted fact just came from and then their counsel and relayed


defendant would be contesting or objecting to would be the fact of the allegation even though he didn't object to that there wasn't further explanation of context and i think that's important because here even in the allegation the charge


at his record afterward he's committed no violent crime since he was twenty out was the argument made below the court then addressed and went into everything we just stuff earlier more market day about this it in the child and the explanation for


with this case and with this court ending can set is well we decided gardner that was the deciding factors we base that decision on the fact that in north carolina all you need to do is overcome a victim instance and they don't really care how much force it is and our


actively waive that issue well two things your honor st and if you look at a brief on a field they actually have an urge to waiver with respect to that issue i know that's a technical point but you can waive waiver as well so if that's the court's reading of the record then i'm not


words you still see sites to cooper you still see sites to west in other words no one is saying that the single word in this single case that really isn't even construing the factor that we're talking about here affected this great


should adopt the most broad state definition over a more narrow instinct well quite the opposite your honor because the rule lenity requires that the court look st text structure history and purpose of the statute and it did almost the same


really does just collapse into an enhancement saying if you run from the police in any way and i would also submit your honor he started running before the police showed up he started running the officer noticed him running and then


i think the government acknowledged as it had to under the plain language of the enhancement it probably wouldn't apply we would say it doesn't apply and then that's this case because joint appendix seventy eight seventy nine well it's almost scary because it's not


group a circuit says it's all part and parcel it was that the drugs were tainted and even though maybe some are aimed that that doesn't have been to do with the facts of this case which i understand undisputed are that the defendant mr


have specific special authorisation to be on that road at that time but no court that i'm aware of question about that i thought that was an attractive argument about the structure of the statute but then i would look at the


the defendant makes this argument why don't you say oh hang on if that's your argument we'd like to recall the officer so he can tell us about his experience and if we need a we do write one so that we can get some statistics for it


judge stage but both of these issues were priest to you to the district court on appeal from that judgment unless the court has any further questions we will rest on our briefs


maybe wrongly but i don't view this is a mens rea issue this is a this is a pure decisional issue on the quality of the substance it has dr berry or has no impact on their mens rea a because they were completely unaware of


did but the district court never actually nor the magistrate judge her reach the nights and sampson balancing test because it applied graph and but i believe that only applies when there is in fact a special need beyond the law enforcement and that simply


absent here is a mandatory condition for sex offender so the court doesn't choose to to allow it so in terms of whether this can this statute complies with the th amendment sima jet the nd thing is whether it requires reasonable suspicion and whether it was


it was never the test of it in evidence the background for this your honour's is this is a murder investigation this this was not a gun purchase investigation and the source of that information the


you st have to do with procedural reasons and then substance brazenness but in this case we only want to do is that ok they say yes you don't have to reach procedural reasonable the guidance of the united states government in this case was was that our


and also on page forty nine the direct testimony of deputy luther they had located an individual and was wanted on a warrant of some type and they had found contraband inside the


it goes to whether or not courtney green had a motive to lie to her mother in making these statements and motive as this court and many other circuits have consistently explained and has that defendant admit is one of the most important circumstances to consider


shootings change the analysis does it become a some stage less speculative does it have to happen at the university of texas austin campus by somebody who did have a proper permit just how does this play out in the future if we say you have


purpose of preserving well it can't that be presented to the arbitrator not if there's not a arbitration agreement and if it is if it is


on the basically how equifax deals that day i mean that's how large it is there's no rhyme or reason other than the data furniture instructs them to continue reporting it on and that is


context here it's not a term kind of floating in isolation within the statute garner and scalia say words are to be understood according to the ordinary everyday meaning unless the context context


most difficult administrative compliance issues would be gross weight that's literally changes by the day depending on what's in the truck but this unloaded empty weight over four curb away at the interpretation that we're advocating very straightforward


it's the case that the district court cited the difference between our case and logan case is of course that not only did in this case they make an


it did fundamentally change the players and certainly what we're talking about that i agree with you ought to put that together with key parts one was how we got to how us energy development corporation got to be the operator why it needed to and that's because the existing operator was not


you have four separate proceedings at issue four separate legal proceedings at issue only two of which are well two of which were brought by us


one of the issues in the case is the filing of his e o complaints federal sector employees for the very short window in which they can file


performance ratings started to drop to f s and that's part of his contention is that it was not until after he had read requested a reason accommodation that he began receiving the f s on his appraisals as a part of a retaliatory


it we're talking about events that happened years ago just curious as to where this case how long it was in the district court oh it wasn't just it was it was it was in the district court probably maybe a year and a half of the most


issue and the second issue was never that's a conversation he has with the lawyer i mean the lawyer says hey we should we repay this and so that's another issue for a conflict is when that lawyer is he can't use an advice of counsel defense


cases are replete with instances where district courts when defendants are arguing and objection doesn't come out of nowhere a defendant is explaining to the district court you're using the


to one of the witnesses who had given them a phone number and to the other witness they sent him various e mails so i think there's an indication that i see on november eighth they sent both of them one got a phone call the other one got an e mail hundred


record of that so that when no there was no record of that ok so i would i would agree with you that there is no record showing what portions i would have like to bring in jack to go ahead what i did and my time is up


v one point one enhanced and of course this is completely factual than the burden is on lewis to show that the district court did not clearly err in its account of the evidence that supported the enhancement this court can affirm on any basis


mckale so that's why this the facts of this case are so compelling so i think you're right i've seen those statements now you get in by e mail where there's a zero balance or whatever's going on you haven't done anything you need to update information that's just a common


where they allegedly fraudulent activity occurred d t s is located three hours away near san antonio d t s had other recruiters the testimony was that for example one more month pereira's was focusing her efforts


also in ganji there were two separate practices geographically separate practices in the defendants in gone she had no way of knowing that as a separate practice elsewhere it was operating fraudulently but in


an if if the government hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt actual knowledge so i don't know i really don't think that it was clear and certainly the fact that there was literally no


are they i'm at risk of being removed from their home before we render an opinion in this case not to my knowledge no


prove that they did not plead that the lane was valid they did not plead the existence of the terms of the original complaint which was superseded other complaint misidentify of the mortgagee the lender it had attached


quantity guidelines the second reason that the limit seven hundred years are relevant is that the supreme court in kuhn's explained that there has to be statutory eligibility in addition to eligibility under the guidelines and looking at and then that seventy eighty which


switch the arguments between the district court on appeal and that of course is to protect the record and allow the district court to make findings in the first instance and to make the correct a termination in the first instance and so in


clause in eighteen u s c section sixteen b and holding that burglary in a particular texas burglary does qualify under that residual clause so in weasel was sentenced his burglary convictions could have been violent felonies either under the


however again mileage for mileage purposes if she would continue on f m five o five to one sixty six and then to highway one eighteen that would have taken her to i ten sort of at an angle up now that's


please the court john sullivan on behalf of the balance of state is not a second class litigant in federal court when there's a federal cause of action on the line in an imminent lawsuit over a concrete controversy in both the


goes back to at least the one nine hundred forty s and second of all even if the history is not clear what you're looking at in a reasonable this inquiry is balancing what is the intrusion on privacy versus what is the legitimate government interest and legitimate governmental


for that is the commandeering doctrine is saying the federal government but there are many interrupters i mean not to be rude but i think i do see where you're going it you would agree it would be improper constitutionally for the federal government to do it but your position now is but texas can do


is in fact covered by us before then the law cannot be facially vague but for the reasons explained to judge dennis that the reasonable or necessary language and our concession that the term material would also


longer foresman purposes or if you have any other questions or concerns about this matter you should contact the ice law enforcement support center at a number that's available they'll twenty four hours a day seven days a week on the back the team needed the need gets that same opportunity right


more apt term is condition precedent offenses because it doesn't require a conviction of the statutes but they apply extraterritoriality and just a follow up on judge host question we all of that the charges that were charged


live by the prudent person standard and that a defense friendly pleading presumption created by the judiciary not found in the statute is not appropriate it would be strange for the


controller who testified for the government said he'd never met mr maddox he never even talked on the phone so certainly i'm not saying he wasn't a heavy heavily involved in game day but this was not a personal corporation this is a legitimate sports merchandising company


evidences of her going to trade shows her setting up appointments with potential customers importers distributors except her oil for sales she was constantly sending out priceless and marketing this product throughout the entire period


for all of which involved reconciling positions regarding accounting but we did what lone star sled and disputed


here from the city next


i did once they said this is too deep and they started walking back he said one way or find another place to cross the aliens of course are intrusted with a guide do they pay money to be smuggled across the river


up to here and so the sea change would be adopting the claims position which would also require you to contradict what the state panel ruled on and create various circuit splits in doing so the facial vagueness standard and


wording says if you're going to apply for in obtaining a right of way permit on the streets you have to implement a traffic control plan that is corresponds to the nature of the event and the


unreasonable in this and this is something which the plaintiff has never addressed and has petri stated in the last year was because they never briefed it it's waived so they've never addressed the fact that the second


record so it has zero out it's not a problem for you in the sense that it's not objected to when it's brought in the fact that the officer had a confidential informant right that that was an object to add you know about this confidential informant


four as i received information from confidential informant about three or four weeks ago and there was no objection to that ok and and that the fact that we have it stretching in terms of harm from three or four weeks before to what he knows


judge i would point out that the district court in fact found that the parties agreed that the continued employment constitutes acceptance by both the plaintiff and the defendant so the fact the district court i think was using the same analysis that by showing up for work the next


longer has to prove there was a reckless disregard for not knowing the minors age that's what it comes down to and you don't you know that he had in this case there was evidence that he had more than original


none of them with a license to do business with anyone form an l l c or a corporation isn't that what it's all about unless you cross the line if you cross the line and you deplete that l l c a corporation so that has no assets when the individual bidu business


those are my three resolution covered all out of the courts bankruptcy proceeding carved out of the automatic stay it did carswell and the ultimate interpretation was that i do it i'll say nothing more hokey


that matter goes outside the bankruptcy what was the purpose of the arbitration i really couldn't couldn't figure that out from the record here and i want to understand this because i think it defines or informs who is


effectively what we have here is that the officers are pointing to a number of different factors saying this is what we use to establish probable cause and the only point of evidence they have other than there are statements of that and mr williams statements in


answer it is not and it's not something that was at issue directly in the district court the only thing that was raised in the answer was effectively that the the district court ruling should be read to say that the blood draw was sufficient to


part of the record and he denied all of that but i think that opposing counsel are one of his arguments is that it's very tempting to treat this as a credibility issue right if it's sort of lends itself to that of course we all know


mean something more than i can just enforce this practically and i think that's where some of the cases are struggling with well how can the claim truly be either gone or truly enforceable and i think not


anything it didn't show work and oppose the motion to avoid the mean it didn't show up and oppose the claim objection and i think any arguments that has here today have been waived but obviously you know the court will well determine that


in hindsight diamond probably should have simply appealed that order and come before your honor's however diamond believed in it because of economic reasons and kind the reasons that the


so i think when you look at the order that was entered on the th you're going to see that this wasn't an interpretation this wasn't a clarification this was treatment the this was a modification and so whether or not


least you know what would be in that point and valuation which is what she discusses is that the rule i thought the rule was that it had to be a reasonable estimate of value i think you


correct whatever the value is it's something on by the corporate trust and so the trustee is free to sell it a band in that he's making no no other entities making a claim of ownership on it sekret it has and and


well what i'd like to say it guarding the standards one it's clearly erroneous it seems you know we're not arguing facts candidly i came up with this in the car over here and then


wouldn't have that wouldn't be there had been i forget the timing of it we were we ultimately obtain a judgment against mr adams i think that was done the judgment was entered after he was just


relationship really didn't exist with this maxwell and tell it was discovered that she had been accurate on her paperwork so to suggest that the state should have taken a debtor creditor


clause was a mistake was not in conflict with the pretrial order which embrace the issue of whether the parties intended to be bound by that clause and so i think as well i'm


jury trial over in federal court on the claim that they remain in arbitration but the fact is is that the parties agreed because they wanted to save time money and expense by consolidating them into a single form no one was intending to give up the rights to


for the account because at that point in time they didn't know what each l l c would draw in the their work tax returns would also show that he didn't book a two million dollars home to my client then write it off it was booked each


would have a license there's no requirement for renting or using a jet ski that a person be of a certain age and here we're talking about grown adult men who decided rent a jet ski there was nothing apparent about them


death on the high seas act cases to be specifically heard both by federal and state courts particularly because states had already for a long time created a statutory right for wrongful death and if it happens in


the burden would be well instead on that on the government could could we use collateral estoppel if indeed there are the burden of proof is different i mean it's to me that the burden of persuasion is different


them all acting together through the same distributor who's also engaging in the misconduct that's enough that is not you know just over the line in purina is economic best interest to to do the same thing


don't understand the court's question i don't have procedural questions what i've said in our brief is what i think is the law the judgment was recorded and it's good for ten years under state law and then under bankruptcy law as long as it still right when the bankruptcy is


and he puts false information declarations committed perjury under dr ration and a declaration can he not have a point say i was under the influence of medication that's not perjury that that goes to whether you're going to pursue him or someone going to pursue him for perjury as to whether black


court was required to apply state law in determining the validity and the effect of the mean and it's the season's position that the court did not properly apply


twelve creditors and then it was montana's burden to show that they didn't qualify they didn't satisfy that burden there's nothing that would show that was a clearly erroneous holding and so therefore you need three and my ten almost seems to concede that they focus


perhaps where i began which is that b l e is about a type of agency action that had found to head that the court had found to be traditionally unreviewable and a decision that was made on a wholly discretionary


lack of appropriate activity by turning over the assets of haven't been received i think that might be a fair characterization and even if that that's


that it wouldn't be in your brief this is a case where the male prisoners claimed that a male guard entered his room while he was sitting on the toilet and began searching the room the inmate asked the guard to leave while he was still in the


other watch and i miss you just a tad many of these discussions were between your client and workers in the organization not the owner is what is the record shows to whether they had


outside so one await applies when you've got a claim as you said aleem or terms we claim or something outside that is being enforced in the state court action three sixty two comes down then you know no one in state court


and even if you have some argument about you have to bring rule levon or rule nine zero eleven eleven motion prior to some decision that


capable of saying when equitable towing applies and when it does not and i've explained several times that if you require a motion to be brought


distress it says it's looking at the eight dollars centimeter support and it's saying there's a cost savings of between zero dollars thirty five cents and a dollar on an optical to strive if they leave out this eight centimeter support they acknowledge that it would be worse for class members and yet they make


to grade the quality of the other components e r one thousand six hundred and eighty seven another document talks about market driving competition and price pressure creates the need for better produced b o m costs and there it just


deal with the risk of stock media that could be caused by removing the aids and meter support feature so there's no quality reduction when you look at the overall product shown in this document also importantly that is a document that most states


purposes of this enhanced and basically the same way they get treated for purposes of calculating criminal history become criminal history category and as i understand it if as i understand actually your client did get three points for this conviction i don't think you even


sorry we kept you in longer than six months that was a big mistake but you're free to go and we've now reset in studio to six months i take it you would you would say that that conviction gets the full ten levels even though it was everyone concedes it was a complete mistake it should never have


would argue that same analysis applies on that you have any cases of say the statue of limitations on a fraud claim runs as to a plea of claiming to be defrauded if his fraudster has pleaded guilty


you're you're going past what they said they didn't say we can do this better than any other company could ever do before you're now implying from stuff my question is you'll find out a year later six months later


the entire impression that was given to investors was because they had the data the experience the people and the competency that the risks and the factors that caused the losses


that didn't happen here as the appellant's counsel acknowledged the court clearly said that the violation conduct warranted the above range sentence now the court did say that it was sentencing the


the conspiracy of it didn't involve the criminal activity from the conspiracy because dexter had removed that before it was a guideline of one being one point three a the use of relevant conduct it's how the


believe that there were i want to say twelve


prime reason why this settlement should not go forward is that the amas chapman has an incentive to maximize the settlement for not only you know not only to make sure she recovers as much


lot of those little facts and i think justice scalia is never at dissent when he is sort of in his way humorously speculating about the likelihood of an officer and a white cadillac was just involved in this very serious crime here


government will bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually engaged in this aggravated felony so here you translate here so here a generally if you're prosecuted for failure to register one of the elements of that offense is that


back if the court were to decide that on the record as it stands mr adams is actually innocent it would give some direction to district courts who as you know are dealing with several many to be sure it would give direction but the only


thirty three page opinion it rejected a facial challenge that was brought against all of the requirements for a multi candidate pac as a whole and it said that the law that the law unconstitutionally discriminated between multi candidate pacs and quote


relief this court rejected that argument it said quote it was not necessary to secure a class certification in order to secure such enlarged injunctive relief meaning relief going to all potential renters and if i can read two


arbitration act contemplate i would imagine you agree with me i absolutely agree with you and this case is a more dream example of that than most cases in that they were involved in every aspect of the


are you conceding that this times with physical fitness or kind of preparedness training that that kind of goes in the fire fighting no we're not conceding that and i want two things i want to clarify first of all physical fitness


supervised lower ranking officers he reported directly to the battalion chief he was assigned to an apparatus he worked with this is subordinates every day he and the rest of his team spent more time in the station than in the field because that is the nature of the


the court should have looked more closely at the in consistencies in mr carter's declaration he was left with the person he was definitely an interested person and there's no question that in some


position i believe that he had and he indicates that he has familiarity with the general functioning and the general responsibilities of the various the various agencies involved and the


again i understand that that is a serious matter and the government has an interest in knowing where these people are but the court in white has said there's a lot of serious cases and there's a lot of


for this defendant if he's forcibly medicated voluntarily medicated restores competency goes any the go to trial and it's going to be like a two hour trial exactly either goes to trial or he pleads guilty


done the exact same thing with or without an affidavit what changed with the appellate opinion is that that was based almost entirely on the affidavit question and in fact there was not a suit filed based on the summary judgment when baylor and


from august one to august one the hearing before judge kaplan was on aug seventeenth of the first policy year the two thousand and six two thousand and seven policy year the i'm sorry the the hearing


w was referring to that brand new contract that m p w had just entered into with b m w for one point not million dollars a year and that was a three year contract but let me go back yes or look in that exhibit eleven


what its own c e o described as its incredible market power rising among others from its size its role of ticketmaster its control of the lead artist management and in the in the country to coerce


the differences between nine twenty four c three d and the career of the criminal acts residual odds turning to this case the macneill's argument that there


think i miss i'm sorry i misunderstood your first question because i believe there's a threshold question of red whether that reconsideration standard really does apply and i think it is not the federal arbitration act and the third circuit all the other courts to consider and have concluded that it does not apply and


had been shown prior i mean notwithstanding what you say notwithstanding what the district court says if you line them up there are different parts of the spine if it that's true there are different reports that it was taken eight months


helping us out on this has


of interest at all about the fifteen dollars that the bank engaged in a practice of applying top line payments to past installments that led it to charge fees that were not do at all in the months in which the


relevant but the judgment in the significant it was it was it was it was not without significance but you wanted the judgment was against companies in dubai and china two companies or two jurisdictions they do not recognize us


so the reason that in that context the huntsman court said results secured in and of themselves the inherent value they're really talking about let's look at something like hourly fee value because otherwise the lawyers are going to get nothing similarly in


please the court mr a member of the nation of gods and earths his spend nearly twenty years in solitary confinement and he could remain there indefinitely solely because he will not renounce his religion because


supplemental appendix that the state has presented that suggests that the state in this case decided the admissibility of these two confessions on their merits elsworth notwithstanding first of all and we consider that


government and business zoning authorities and the proposed development go back and forth then and you try to meet the zoning boards throws


your answer whenever that happens what the religious organization wants that building if they can't have it that's a substantial because i mean that's not a logical but i'm just trying to figure out is there any stopping point and i see my time's run out but if i may respond


they have to have i disagree with your interpretation of my despair think i did have they did have a basis to stop them the question was did they have a basis to frisk that young man and that's the same question here again there's no dispute about the stop


i think that's where we get to the public policy behind this and if it's even we should go in the face in favor of officer safety and with regard to the results of sr suspicion standard


then get up and say wait let's all stop i've got my concealed carry permit in my back pocket if you'll just give me a chance to do it he made a look apparently maybe he didn't understand what the officer said maybe he is like i thought we were just being stopped for a traffic stop


in countering mr robinson that he was dangerous for the mere fact that he was found at the end he was reported to have been at the seven eleven in a high crime area apparently one of many in the city of


up a pistol you do know you do not need to own a pistol you can just go to the store and buy one and open carol actually for an officer to know whether i mean and i mean i think


cocaine and marijuana distribution there was a conspiracy in the south of count on each of those i'd like to turn first to the money laundering issues that we raised in our brief the can i have she a question for sixty


used by those objects which would be in this case the boat in the fifth avenue trailer that within used to high drug your honor i believe that cox own the boat


first we have the the pattern of the behavior here this was a situation and where the defendant and castillo and his other coconspirators were engaging in increasingly large quantities of drug dealing in the early years it


promotion but you know he kind of but what was the charge in the indictment the charge an indictment was promoted to a motion yes or so the indictment charged but the judge only his own charge don't conceal


my reading your honor is that you know this was a very very sloppy jury a set of jury instructions there were multiple problems if you read through it is not the common one i've had on either drug conspiracies are things and


and then their interpretation of those words aren't true because it's not binding or effective in twenty eleven and so we don't think that there's a basis to sustain the judgment below based on the contract you arguing that people attorney communications are privileged


by the time we got a ruling it we probably would then in bargaining with the next collective bargaining agreement i mean just that the timing of it doesn't make sense but in the real world as well the expense of it ok fair enough i mean it's you know these


very beginning really doesn't matter i don't think in terms of the timing of it but it was early in the encounter that he gets mr taylor's name which is all they needed because then they compared they were able to find his old d n a from two thousand and seven and


well had met his burden of proving that it was more likely than not proven officials would acquiesce in the leases behavior so given the facts of this case and that the board


proceedings or any way in order to make these people pay a second hundred thousand dollars if in fact legally they have already paid one hundred thousand dollars you tell me while we walk can't we look at that issue because why well i think you can't look at that issue in the in the


criminal barrier but here it's different you may have a preexisting conviction that fits with the steps story skiing for civil commitment but there still have to be other findings of contemporary things on


the immigration concerns were concerns going forward and that's what the congress was focusing but that didn't stop the court in that case from holding that the law still had a retroactive effect as applied to the individual in that case


allowed to be heard in a case in chapter eleven even after the judge but in this case and this this is the point that seems to have a dropped out of the oral argument here in this case


government looks at it is if you're in a car and somebody is told you're not getting out to we're telling you get your get in out you have an you know that's a significant threat to your person or you're going up to fight your way out jump out of the car that's stops and that you have there


which he had not withdrawn at the time that the other side consented and the district court then entered the order in november th team saying this case will be tried by the


constitutional is because it permits the district court to resume jurisdiction over a specific case suicide on say if there is some good cause and these are the considerations that were are separate from when a party is asking for relief so you are


at this point in time in july two thousand and ten that psychiatric any any took from what doctors you knew said that at this point in time it's more likely related to depression i mean your honor honestly i don't know if we talked to doctors or do it if he would


submitted and we are now adjourned for that week


please the court james you going to have a plan of class like reserve five minutes of my time for a bottle constitution requires that the government provide every individual detains with humane conditions of confinement government has not come close to meeting that


population isn't going to expose the entire detainees population to communicable diseases there's a number of issues present with measles other tuberculosis officers need to be trained in order to observe though


well it is i read the primary injunction he didn't consider many of these factors and i think that what baffles me is he wrote a twenty nine page opinion


statutes and then more broadly again the ninth circuit and california state courts have applied california law in such a way to determine that a business practice is deceptive regardless of what the intent to is regardless of whether there's intent to


they will be able to prove are these isolated instances instances that don't rise to the level of practices and that's it seems to me the same thing as all the plaintiff has alleged for now is this intentional wrongdoing which would be covered by an exclusion but it remains possible that all they'll be able to prove his negligence and that would be


truck in may of two thousand and fourteen to determine whether he has crossed the was still authorized to transact business in the tribes accounts and whether that was inadequate not reasonable now the tribe was a deposit council


going to result in a continuation on your ties basis we our position is that's the best that's the best reading that would be to read those can see read all those additional all this continuation or additional term provisions


this reason the congress limited one thousand and five a just to just to individual pieces because there are there's plenty of time available in the other extensions there is the primary term and then these these leases


arguments the case of river tribe is now submitted for decision and we are in adjournment there will be rescheduled for another set of hearings for another panel at ten o'clock but that's going to be delayed by


tactical or not but if it's authorized it doesn't matter whether it's tactical or no so what there is a rather extensive opinion from another bankruptcy so regardless of


new judgment on the conviction it's just a question of whether or not he has to serve the originally imposed full term of a life or the commuted term of three hundred sixty and i think the way to look at it are our


that verbal objection does not then give right and give way to an arrest for interfering with an investigation especially when she has a right to be there and advise her client for


assessor version the sashing held the constitutional and of course we know that you're not supposed to be influenced by the distorting effects of hindsight but i think probably the most fatal problem with this particular analysis


counsel from wanting to raise the claim in other words in order to find thomson in effect if you'd have to say that no reasonable attorney in arizona would have raised this claim and what's very startling here is that judge wake failed to take into account and give proper weight


disregarded the proximate cause requirement on the monetary award and then most importantly one of things that he did here which is a violation of my client's due process rights was that he then considered in making his decision


attempt everybody tries to plead their case within the line in the twamley decision about complex and historically unprecedented changes that have no apparent purpose other than to coordinate industry behavior and


this court held that restrictions on contact with contact with family members are allowed but that you need to do an individualized review of the relationship and in for example in the apolo case there the relationship was


but they refused to acknowledge that our patented ground over seven thousand acres of land is unmonitored valley so i mean the counselor on how did land there on a ranch is all over the state in nevada fallon in the in the cell


land where he had water rights with any grace some without a permit the question is whether he gets the phase one penalty phase two penalties or face three


of whether or not there is something that you can point to that would clearly say that police officer you can't do that well where this court applied that analysis and johnson i think that is an example and i understand the concern that


was a california resident for sure they did have some residents here but it was it was a it was a corporation as i recall that was that was created in minnesota and in minnesota law so that's what i remember


a union representative that had a substantial experience a during our discover we show that's just not true that's pretext and that's what we said in our summary judgment opposition those other items trying to take a student from a campus supervisors hands trying to take a student


proceeding at all van waters and rogers again there are two different unions but the sub the grievance doesn't involve the second union


and like i said we split the time i'm going to take no more than ten minutes and then pass the remaining time to ms barnes because my time is limited i wanted to focus on two issues st the lack of possibility of the tribes claim


controller whether your honour's decide to vacate every burst we ask you to affirm that specific aspect of the judgment below but i'm here if your honour's having your questions otherwise i'll rest on the


that basis and help me understand whether that is something tate can do given that they don't really have an interest in pride torrens duty to defend us t w against states claims they have


to characterize that as well he must of had an interview because why else would he sign the documents we're talking we're talking after february ninth right and he sent them because and his cover


qualify that isn't the case here the case here is strictly did they foreclose while it was still pending how it would have turned out is not before the court here if he had been turned down again just prior to the may seventeenth


that section three b two of the i c a divest the court of jurisdiction and competence to determine a factual issue predicate to or i see a claim being whether yahoo violated the conditions of its two thousand exempt of declaration


private litigant has been able to challenge the continued delivery of the exemption act so it really is playing a suburban here to show the way to do it because congress didn't create a more specific or direct mechanism and there's a reason because they delegated the power


he was actually permanent and stationary at that point and it's up to bowen who has concluded that claim it required no active treatment or current active treatment so and then he found that the claim why he couldn't do is past relevant work he should undergo the vocational


were and then you could offer the very over say their records they don't trust you to give them the money i don't know but i frankly don't think that's what they would say and there wasn't a monitor there wasn't a monitor at the time that we were doing this


are in was needed to make the claim that that's what i'm suggesting and i think that the government has to make the claim originally that level five owns the trailer and we're defending it because we're the title under under the status quo they need to actually do something there needs to be


freeze for longer than ten or twenty days then the fact that the freeze has continued to this point it seems to me that would be sufficient for purposes of the notice of appeal


that's the inequitable conduct that we're addressing here from the bank's perspective it was all one independent it was all one economic unit then you could let me a go at this one more way could you read to me the language that


that the order on the motion from for sanctions regarding the trade secrets had nothing to do with rule thirty seven when indeed the motion the i q s filed and the other party's joint specifically said this is gone too far we have to


and it would be just to affirm this this case cannot go on any further thank you thank you your honor


whichever one predominates should be the way the decision is made in august two thousand and fifteen the conversion was granted it was granted twenty one days before a jury


c however which is not in agreement is there what are the criteria used to establish the four factors and how do you know when you've met the four factors well the answer to that was provided through


dismiss there was a motion to convert and there was a plan that was of that was that was the that was occupied my all of my time which i have to spend in order to come to speed on all of this in order to prepare those documents there was


specifically she found that b m w knew or should have known no later than august of two thousand and seven that the catalyst which is that the center of this litigation manufactured by the police court attack failed to


there was never a debt to be collected under ohio law it has nothing to do with c c c they went to collect a debt that was a vote no different than had it been time are no different than had been a request for


though which is the tennessee robbery statute we would find that it also has two parts and that in the first part it has robbery and robbery incorporates emmons read but if you move down to the second part of that as well it does not


so what i'm trying to figure out then is looking at the facts in the light most favorable to mr roll which we're doing on this yes case at this stage yes mr roll has no longer possession


today no i don't think so no they're asking for the application of that in this context in this factual context and there i'm more than confident telling the court that i believe that in this case the eighty eight application on a pre arrest is not appropriate could i just end by pointing out a couple things


the judge at that point if he would accept a binding plea agreement but i think the judge made it clear that he was going to accept a binding plea agreement based on the original plea agreement numbers like one hundred to two hundred grams so but


and to create a record that allows for an appeal such that such as the one that we're facing today and that's that's that's in the case of opposite of if they stay if they truly believe that in those for


saying made no sense so whether that was by itself sufficient to show legal incompetence i don't think we have to take that extreme position nor can this be however affirmative evidence that he was in fact compton there


complaint in the complaint thank the complaint and section section one hundred five c two the act says that the minor must have a belief that there was a violation under the miner act


secretary may reason i'm tired but yes i mean i think that's part one and the reason one this is part two but then you still even if it's authorized you still have to go on and do the


enforced never actually did what he would he didn't do it your honor and i'll do this but he never did the analysis but he didn't he didn't do it your honor because the defendants and to his mind had waived their personal jurisdiction defense by filing their answers and i think


regulations and then i go in detail in the complaint to explain how they did not satisfy those regulations i don't know what else they could have done other than to maybe spoon feed to the judge each an individual regulation but i did in fact


for all of us not having been there but one i'm stunned for a district judge would be to have it in camera a hearing where because of the sealed nature of the materials here do you know whether the record reflects


when it talks about new tele practice what it says is that the operating efficiency of unit two will be maintained and preserved ordinary we're excepted in all material respects in accordance with


that had this information come to light during the naturalization phase the testimony shows that there would have been red flags both the immigration attorney and our agents testified that they would have looked closer that they would have investigated


don't think i have anything else to


that we should look at the fact that the trial court never accepted his guilty plea and if mr carter was competent enough to withstand these competency here to to stand trial then why wasn't he competent enough to plead guilty when


petitioners suicide attempts evidence that the court considered for incompetence but also the fact that he wanted to be absent from trial that is irrational behavior for a defendant was cases in which experts said the person


violation if one should occur is before the court and as this court is aware mr prodi would have the opportunity to engage in litigation with the bureau of prisons based on its application


principle is that only a judge has the power and the authority to determine the content of a sentence once the sentences imposed by a judge it cannot be added to by prison authorities or even the judge


will in mr newman's argument that mr jones the sentence was quote served close quote it's clear in ohio that there is a construct that is not ambivalent and not confusing as


the code of ordinances and you can't go outside the code of ordinances in order to fashion a remedy for the city the city is bound by the code of rights and a court doesn't have power to interfere with that code to authorize a city ever covered to give the city a quick recovery outside


any violence compulsion or constraint now we know from the united states supreme court's recent decision in mathis that this court should consider alternative means but the rest of that definition is any violence compulsion or constraint physically exerted by


actually look at the chapman standard with respect to any of these errors and it really consider the errors in isolation not under the prosecutorial misconduct standard of the record as a whole in that regard for him to the trial judge


and providing the statement for example of morris circles to the police which said that the person who knocked out the window was the shooter but the d n a conclusively establishes that that was not the defendant and instead of providing that


class membership to it asked your classmate yes yes exactly i don't know of one that says that in of itself would be sufficient but i think mullin stands for that proposition and i think the ninth circuit's


essentially compulsory counterclaim under ohio law what's what's your best case or argument for that there's two answers to that one judge moore and i thank you for that question though with the first answer is it doesn't meet the transaction or


qualification to one another other than with respect to security which was mrs horn's was a period that's a matter of record there was a comparison of the paris disciplinary record


mr moore said if the animal control officer lynch came back he would kill i mean so we're we still have to write an opinion that said it had an obligation to


prior to that warrant what you're calling noncompliance i would say was non cooperation at what was his obligation up until the point of the why aren't dissolved let us down its obligation to allow law


here it would be the nonexistence that like you can see that you like you can't speculate that either officer penny nor mr for much more couldn't see you can't speculate that because you know officer pinney said he could see and


just doesn't add up when you look at the medical examiner's report into entry of the bullets and what he says it doesn't add up but really what i want to ask is let's do a what if let's do the what if if more comes out instead of says i don't believe you that you're an officer and in that


touched on the alternative argument raised by the union about the implied contract your honor it is an implied contract and again i would turn the court to dhaka number twenty two it's the last two pages of the district court's opinion all of the case law is cited from the six circuit and others highlighting


lps over which it ordered extensive relief and the end also already rejected expressly affinities argument that these disputes ought to have been


is what they say your honor and that is insufficient to give them grounds to remove the voter from the voter rolls so the exception to this rule against removing voters for failure to vote is for a two step process that's laid


andersen and they look to ohio state law we know from ohio state law for instance with the hodges case although the government contends that it is essentially an outlier it's not an outlier it's ohio law ohio law says


simply by looking at someone cross eyed acquire crosswise or doing something that's a minor and doesn't satisfy johnson two thousand and ten for suppose you know there's an ohio cares and i'm now going to sort of change the facts a little bit suppose


and little bit more than half those i believe are eighty two cases and roughly two thousand those are a one cases and i bring that up because out of a well i haven't read four thousand cases in all of the various


under these rules who receive less contributions as a result of this rule that self evident the rule is a political contribution ban or prohibition depending on whether or not you can vote of the candidate ok i'll look at those cases so i think standing is fairly


now be defined as municipal advisors were otherwise probably being regulated but who nevertheless engaged in improper actions so you have some direct evidence of concern and concerning behavior but again it seems to me you go back


thousand dollars might be a drop in the bucket there whereas for you know some official in say new york new jersey that's a big chunk of money why why wouldn't the analysis be different for the federal official well at the end of the day that you have no guarantee that the federal


regulations for thirty five point one zero one zero and then you're asking for deference notwithstanding the fact that you're advancing inconsistent interpretations your


might be appropriate it wouldn't come into play in the in this situation or that your honor we believe that you don't even need to get to the regulatory exceptions in this case to the different definition of what an inmate


they don't dispute that the covered children in this case meet both of those requirements and they also don't dispute i'm saying i'm sorry if you meet both of those requirements under the plain language of the regulation then you are in


legitimate mortgage litigation activities can form the basis for rico's predicate acts of mail or wire fraud however the eastern district of new york looked at this exact issue and said to allow legitimate litigation activities


consideration as far as part of acumen a very analysis moving on if i could to the nd issue which is a special verdict form here again to the government's credit it has conceded the error regarding mens rea and so if i could also move on then to the instructional errors


six grams of methamphetamine in the trunk of the you know you so you need the you need the drugs in the trunk we absolutely need the drugs in the truck and so i'm not sure are and i get that he's running away i


complicated issues of divisibility of the aid and abet statute i mean talk about making one's head hurt this particular issue is particularly thorny and for this court to be asked to address this within days and with no


let's terminate it wasn't until the following day when the supervisor learned that the appointments had been cancelled that he said this is a major violation of our customer service policy so the timing actually


evidence twenty two depositions and we put the evidence in the record and the lack of evidence on the essential elements of related claims in front of the district court i would also note that the district court was now a different judge when


so it is two things opinion and best evidence and i'm the one hand and all the opinion and all the best evidence had to do with circumstances which preceded the settlement agreement and the settlement agreement said


inevitably the calculation he founded in part on the settlement agreement which was not produced on a mayor and not be relevant but it wasn't produced yourself you were that's right i mean it was not produced there were no there was no factual or


air well i don't believe that what the prosecutor did was sufficient to on do his own error in fact add that might be your argument i'm just trying to put you on the spot this is playing error of you i understand and what the


two bank loan documents a two thousand and nine security agreement and the two thousand and thirteen security agreement the principle question at issue in this case simply stated is does the integration clause in the two thousand and thirteen


whether or not the state court decision was wrong we just get to say whether or not the court was the object the unreasonable in making the rule and given the deference that we have to give the state court the problem what you


the district court relied on an elk booth which is a montana district court case and who said that the attempt language necessarily includes the mens rea of the intent


could also be sexual abuse which is contained in the twenty five year enhanced meant we have such will exploitation in the thirty five year enhanced meant these are different terms but when you look at it through this long range lens of relating to those can become


rocky slopes and most of these properties are on in fact we've submitted evidence of this most of the properties owned by people all across the united states and so they're not they would have to show up at a board meeting to actually you know vote the policies that want and in fact most these


to us is the source of the funding for this lawsuit he was removed from the board of directors and the record before the court demonstrates that most of the people advocating for his removal are the folks sitting next to him they are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit


maybe this is in the record but i just don't know if you all exhausted efforts to try to mediate resolve this case through mediation has that been tried and failed and you're just we're beyond that point now because this does strike me as a case that this is not


a decision of the lower court based on any support in the record and here i think it again is well supported in the record there was a record that would make it apparent that this is a material issue correct again


good morning may please the court my name is tiffany scott connors and i represent appellate on burg the issue before the court today is did the district court abuse its discretion in personally sanctioning dr martin the court does not


at trial and then the motion for reconsideration when when judge roll bart had time to read an exhaustive declaration and he said that dr martin has has comprehensively explained his actions and decisions


different depending on whether we call it but the gist of agreements is claim retaliation and i think practically speaking your honor i mean if i need to constitutional violations is different than finding one constitutional


in the naval case the defendant didn't disclose that he had been in this car wreck and that it isn't that the lawyers fault i mean what why didn't the lawyer why isn't an ineffective assistance of counsel argument for not investigating why is this guy delusional


if you can have a mild form right that allows you to practice loves you to interact allows you to make rational decisions because you're that's what the colleagues say he was dealing he was


pick them up when he wanted when she wanted there was no evidence of that i want to think quickly on this point i think they really had no idea what the government would say or present


we need to rule against him because we're blowing a hole open for removal here and we need to be really strict on you know where's the federal directly strict but strict enough to have a limit someplace but the


purpose of the wilderness act as required by the exception provision and secondly even if we were to set that first problem aside the park service cannot demonstrate that the structures were necessary to meet minimum requirements for administration of the wilderness


they have to preserve these buildings in their current location sitting at the end of the trailhead where they're sitting in the olympic wilderness to meet those minimum requirements to preserve historical values and in this case i don't believe so your honor they could


and that's where the second passage that i would like to relay to the court comes into play it's in strickland itself at pages six ninety five and what the court there said is that the assessment of prejudice should


focus and not what other claims may have come up later on in the course of behaviors briefing and on appeal and the claim that was presented to the post conviction court was that counsel should have objected to these unidentified


were but be that as it may that x hurt or supposedly expert talks about the in corage ability the inherent evil of people who commit this crime and that impacts the duration of sentence it's not either


assumed the corresponding duty to perform the conditions the contract imposed as a consideration for their payment there was no express assumption in dollar this letter


trust was for washington trust not merely to it except an assignment but also to agree to take on the l l c's duties now i will concede that


not unless it just strikes me that all the implied assumption cases are tied to intent they need to show we intended to assume this obligation they offered not one piece of evidence showing that we intended to assume that with each name plaintiff


conviction and i would submit that that is incorrect i think that this court's on bank opinion in the united states versus brawn which is not in our briefing but i can hand the citation or would be happy to submit if you want to have an additional citation if you can just send a twenty


how tried could suggest if to if this afternoon my counsels is in session cut a regulation to open up idaho to hunting in within the next person territory how would that be consistent with the concepts of reservation


versus christensen but christensen this is not say that the defendant has to repeat the objections at the sentencing procedure and which which paragraphs of the pre sentence report to the defendant object to in writing


pleading for mercy when he says i didn't rape anybody the judge at that point yes at that point the judge has to have a has to say i'm resolving this issue that i was an objection you


even if i were even if we were to grant that emotion that was filed in the district court should be looked at as a selective enforcement motion instead of just a prosecution moment yes and moving beyond that


carter and sins the other would be to simply accept the district court's findings that in fact we start with an offense level twenty and then after you add in all of the additions that are required by guideline to g one dollar


she begins by saying well there are objective similarities no question butterfly roof you look at the through the front view looks a little different but you know it looks sort of got the same sort of sort of boxy feel i she acknowledges all of that and then tells you


let me interrupt you for just a second so the policy they're challenging says you're prohibited items any item device or information that represents a threat to safety or security of the institution or which may negatively impact the goals of the


on to say that he would purchase a bulk amounts of marijuana from jesse two to three times a week how quantities for eleven hundred dollars per half pound


but it seems like the burden should be on the government i disagree and i think so beside the ultimate burden i think besides the point about the injunction the


your position changes well throughout the entire you know i think our case was as always been that there was a joystick acknowledge that some would be sufficient for x i believe so your honor because that because of the way we and


forecasts heins actual orders are below the forecasts that heinz will be responsible for those for those for that extra product no one is safe in time for i do and just very quickly are we have we do have an


your probation officer has to look at that bank account and make sure you are balancing your budget and also said things like you have to pay ten percent of your income towards restitution so faced with that when this defendant came out of


force and i would like that it's seems to me i mean the government's theory seems to be that that the limitations on the the police the prosecutors responsibility for the


regulation means of various types of the gene any one of the appendix and so the only way the t m c could distinguish itself was by saying we don't do that and they said that again and again looking at the prior art they did with a very broad brush not even talking about


us do that but during that hearing and this is on page thirty two of our blue brief and it's in it's eight two nine three zero three she says and she's a one of these patent pilot program judges judge virginia kendall she said it's enough to make me not want to


first question what are the odds of two lawyers coming before us in the same taste both of whom i named craig very low to run it for the future that they please the court there are multiple independent bases


subsidiary it just wouldn't make sense to have a different type of regulator placed on those very very subsidiary i thought that maybe another way to put it very


let me start with the debate stamping hypothetical the council put forth what he didn't include and i thought a couple was the notion that you would take he would take all those pages and you would separate them out individual pages and you would have a team of people and you would


ambiguity because the trigger for representation was a first final decision of the board at that point you only could go to court or go back and reopen with new material evidence so in fairness to the in bought


board addresses the argue the primary argument that they made which was that there is no physical embodiment requirement they said they use the words this invention is quote embodied in the code itself they weren't making the argument that this that a general purpose


i would like to comment just briefly on the jarl a case which the in which the judge raised there is one difference i think that was overlooked i think the judge looked far too much


institution decision and judge sailor rightfully response when considering whether our arguments were exceptionally bad whether they were frivolous on the merits response that well with the same reference before the


is formulated it is a procedural due process violation to in for the board to inject flexibility sue a spontaneous in ways that the petition did not propose midway through the trial and that is what happened here


claims and really there's not much in the specification that tells us how long a device would have to be to accomplish that to do any of the numerical ranges that you were reciting a few minutes ago from the specification of the of the


right so admittedly there's a bone somewhere that it's not going to penetrate through to the other side because of course then it would be an anchor but that's got functionality in on xbox world does not tell us whether or not that that device other five thousand or otherwise we're right it doesn't it doesn't


geron just like plain thirty two clementi was rejected over the prior art and the applicant distinguished the reference by saying there was no provision in the prior art for allowing the player to select initial symbols for replacement and


history of the specific it portions is also reasonable or even more reasonable than the district court's interpretation because it's always threatens positions that


with respect to using the wrong parking place in other words putting his personal vehicle in a government vehicle parking spot with the two least significant charges absolutely not if you're considering that argument and matching walking down stairs and asking in


it's just one specific formulation of the patent claim composition which covers broad ranges of different ingredients that it's true but i don't so therefore the concern is is that


of the arguments that you've made in your brief is that the arguments in the brief were about whether quite a number and but it will have a lot to look at the per just real quick from three


patent was as far as he could see not shown to be related to the patent suit also the database that you rely on heavily apparently it had many many entries i think at least thirteen hundred nineteen i think that's


ok granted and then each time you jel imports calls it counts them again it's actually turkish customs counts those calls against that in word processing certificate each time


talked about wire lines or cables white white just curious why do you think it forgot or neglected or chose not to say to be a member unlike in other sections of the reference where baker


in that respect i would agree with the core on that aspect but i think what's different here and i believe for the court of federal claims aired is to give weight to the fact that the new evaluation starts a totally new evaluation


the length of hair may pass out of the chamber that that phrase was specifically defined in the specification in column six and you know i do want to point out that those guiding principles that i just mentioned are in the summary of the


on that your argument here they didn't call out this pass through theory specifically is new argument when they had the opportunity to do it at the oral hearing in the board didn't view it as a new argument either they didn't like the answer i


by i don't i don't i think in my brief i explain why that's the case and one skilled in the art would certainly read the patent that way it doesn't expressly


extend these blades the problem with that is that the claims call for a wire and that the wire is so terribly coupled in the cavity it doesn't say that the wires coupled the rotor or via some other means so the


describing the how then we're in the same place says righty of cases including dealer track which says you have to specify how the hardware is programmed to perform the step but those cases like dealer try her hold on an idea as i said


to go through some comparison between a policy he had and didn't have and how that policy changes over time just say the man continued to serve on active duty until let's say november sixteenth two thousand and seven when the surgery


employee who was removed but it doesn't demonstrate that tend was when they removed him was to reduce the size of the office i think that's a critical difference on rare requires and


and let's let's say the got on a plane and went to which your cancer is to to view our product and then copy our poor our product functionality the mere fact that they didn't do that but instead access it through


that doesn't appear in the other lift arc the difference here is really what we discussed earlier with additive versus attractive the board found the plan would not modify the korea left by taking things away but why it why aren't the


written a sign it can be made presently chose not to use present language in the contract that they had with her for whatever reason they said will the saudis and then the fact that they did not in force an agreement with her means that their rights


fact was actually at issue by virtue of the government's opposition to it such that if certain facts and jurisdiction are challenge if those facts then become necessary in predicate as the court


case issue does that what does that do to the the damages find does it up in that in its entirety or just part of it the only damage finding that we had was that one property was in a


admitted every limitation is met except one and that's a loss and everybody agrees that was the focus and then you have mr humber who was i p s as director of the community saying that the revised classics the way they


sentence i appreciate that question your honor because that's what i take issue with you know none of these witnesses were referencing the claim in their commentary they were comparing accused product to another choose product and


on the court's jurisdiction but as far as the thirty eight coming in within the thirty days i understood your friend to say that they really couldn't do that they couldn't fight go back to the court because there was still something pending based on the motion he would file with our courts the


recipient that in this case the court of federal crimes or be forced to simply award monies from the general fund to the tribes and there would be no ability to control how the


underlying law to see what the situation is that's where dairy queen dead i think that's an important case because they looked at the nature of the claim and they looked at the nature of the relief they said that since the merger of law on equity these distinctions about what we call it


government was very clear about who had seen it was this qualify for federal retirement coverage and you know i'll read from the top of fifty five to get in with quote the federal employee who has no prior claim


creditable serves i believe it's an incorrect statement to say that he had to have five years before the transition that the there's no question there's a factual matter he did not have five years stored in it if for the transition was ninety seven i believe it's


you unplugged it but if you your unplugging it you're saying that he had no incompetence at all that would be one thing but we can't ignore the fact that he had a twenty six year period of incompetence that now own we're saying that none


favored and is preferred and so that case clearly shows that the error that the board made in ignoring the government's relating to the opening brief was prejudicial and


parts of the age of the system i don't believe that's correct your honor because a system controller in the three four nine pattern is developing the system demands things the point of besler is that he has found a way to use the microprocessor


improper conduct it would have all been ok anyway because we don't know that what we do know is what did happen and what we do is what direct did say he said i didn't get it from the clock out quick ation i couldn't have gotten it from the card allocation


conduct related to the march two thousand and four call was not considered by what you want to separate that from what have you happened after the exactly so she's saying the call that goes to the four ninety nine his saying i'm within the firewall


clarifying function and where we learned that is from the text itself they use the word unclear include so so they delegated they said that the they could exercise all powers that were delegated of the attorney general


problem with the vehicle so whether or not it's covered under the warranty we don't get to that until we determine whether or not the statute applies and whether or not this is a breach of warranty case so for me i'm shying to garner from you


representative so we really disagree with the idea that we were not diligent in trying to add an additional plaintiff and being blamed for that when we were trying to really ensure that there was not a delay in the case


the private reply brief in a footnote was to potentially get rid of two particular states i think is delaware and missouri it wasn't an alternative california only class and also again i'll go back to the test which is that the


come and see counsel on the thirty five ninety nine that the existence of a state the mere existence of a state appointed procedure has no effect on that appointment and that the district court should exercise its discretion in


hasn't there just hasn't been a showing of any need for that kind of oversight this is only based on an unsubstantiated argument of what the state court might not provide and that kind of a speculative request is inconsistent with


inevitable disclosure of that


no evidence of contact including plaintiff's own accident reconstruction expert who testified to his conclusion that it was most likely that the sea dence motorcycle rolled off the hill upright on its wheels with the seat and a riding position in addition to these


experts three witnesses of also testified including independent witness arlene currie who testified that she was watching the incident she saw it to see didn't drive off the hill is own volition in a fluid motion


chance to evaluate the prosecution's case he did get a chance to consult with his counsel and was able to make that decision i wouldn't say in every case that's going to be that's going to be the case i am not asking for a bright line rule i think it's going to depend on the


court initially granted apple or initially denied abilene motion for summary judgment and then directed the government file a new motion for summary judgment close to three years later during which time


is twenty minutes per side all right thank you so


it was actually plaintiff that sought to amend its complaint to make a new argument with respect to tenants and judge philip said that the deadline to amend had passed eleven months earlier there was no effort to amend the scheduling orders that was ruling number one ruling number two was there was


the defendant defendant made please the court might she for the government the other side wants to boil distinctions order down to the department of state's decision to take notice that d


entity within the department of state that actually is responsible for conducting investigations into this kind of matter does it reflect a conclusion that actually there was no trafficking and as your opponent said if anything this person was


of the tension however i'm not sure if he made an argument about his dangerousness you know because i believe the time with that would be something you would consider


again but your time is ticking and you know that the district court thought otherwise so as to the person yes as i read it for all of your confidential people yes the court either said you know they weren't there during the operative period of time


cases including intuitive surgical and zuko these kind of reports have to be pled with particularities and going all the way back to silicon graphics there's a good reason for that because if you could just allege well the executive must have known


on track for approval because they knew that a the approximately forty percent of the patients according to the mcdermott he admitted it was about forty percent of the patients that would fall under the a revised


that the product contains two shots of espresso when in fact it does not based on the difference in caffeine levels between the handmade starbucks you get in the store the starbucks


beans that you sold worldwide so what i read the consumer survey to say is not even that as in rubenstein you are just representing that oh well we just are putting some generic press so could be from folger's for all we know


and that's that's consistent with every single independent witness everybody saw this man as a threat including ms bialek who said she felt relief when the officers opened fire on him because of the threat that she perceived from him and


enjoy the way he would have made it but telling me if i didn't respond i think his argument may be a little more nuanced that i'll respond to your question st and then look to what i believe his argument to be has more nuanced argument the plan clearly


unimportant nor that something that people would look to were within the content i believe this was in the supplemental excerpts of record at pages three hundred and eighty four dollars around there i mean this was in the context and it has to be looked at in the


confiscated and given away d by the former union official the former union official being mr lamont he had our property he was communicated to in his official capacity not in any personal


berkowitz spoke about they kept children and all of that those kind of after events i mean those are not relevant of course to the determination of the probable cause for sure there are not and as i mentioned in the pleadings please understand these


not because the discovery rule doesn't told the year it's the filing of the complaint in new jersey that tolls it for a year but that still leaves you deficient eighteen days as a question is why does the discovery why does the discovery


her in other words a plaintiff need not be aware of the specific facts necessary once the plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing and therefore an incentive to sue she must decide whether to


i think they're under the case of counsel said we didn't cite any case that says that the play the identity of the plaintiff has to be the same every case that both sides cited on the issue of equitable tolling


they get to make a decision have to prove substantial prejudice at the end of the day but simply can't work


argument on this issue is you've got to satisfy both in order to bring a magnuson mosque claim whether with respect to any claim in federal court in other words not only do you have to comply with


that really matters because even if we look to to your client's expert which you just read from the report of the direct link between his accident at the hotel two sentences later in a sentence he's


that's bad foreign policy all we're saying is we're not in conflict with all we're saying is let's concentrate on devean divines activity and if we can prove that he intentionally created false information then the


was unaware of the consumer report for issuing he had the test is whether there's actual reconstructive noticed and added minimum here or there is constructive notice was a constructive notice i mean we're on what


evidence that mr cortez cites is his client's deposition testimony that his sons had quote unquote failed at running the business i think that sort of vague statement certainly isn't evidence that the company was broke or closed or out of money


the plaintiff in this case was granted asylum and adjustment and applied for adjustment of status and us c i s deny the application as a discretionary matter because he did not provide as requested in the notice of intent to deny your noid documents concerning his arrest


number one was my client's right to challenge the april two thousand and sixteen i p after the settlement agreement expired on december st two thousand and sixteen the nd area relates to the district's obligations to and g as


if they were going to stay if they were good use the district services those would be those ones they would be the services proposed well i'll be that other place right in the two thousand and six and if and it was perfectly within the district's purview


defendants even knew of mr winds sexual orientation and it is there is you go cite case law on that issue but if they didn't even though it becomes a little more difficult it seems to establish that they were


you the moving party have to demonstrate that there is no factual question that reasonable investigation would not have revealed a factual basis for the claim i'm sorry your honor if you don't you have to demonstrate that there is no factual


tellingly san diego does not even attempt to defend the district court's primary rationale for denying a palin's motion for summary judgment and that's the supposed non existence of the generic one adopted theory once this court corrects


did he did not question the jurors who perhaps were most significant about what journey five as we pointed out in


passing or it was a very short discussion and they were able to put it behind them they were frankly surprised the juror number six had become so distraught by it and it appears that journey six was very emotional during the


warnings in nine other paragraphs directed to suicidality is an adequate warning related to this particular risk but there's just no basis there's no plausible basis and certainly no facts in any of the complaints aside from


when you consent to a judgment you ordinarily don't have the right to appeal from it with her she didn't consent to this ruling she lost this no understand but when you consent to a judgment you can only appeal from that judgment if you expressly


arguing pretext you're sort of arguing some type of cause aren't you arguing no as they say they say they're doing it for x reason and if she's at will they can do it for any reason they could but i think an inference that you can draw


i don't know if you have any more questions for me either i would just point out that in that last letter where they gave dr scheiner one last chance again nowhere in the record are they telling


they give away our services for free they they tend to in the course here we we showed that they said trade of the market with over two trillion


relate to in the potential confusion between progressives use of the market and you as well they cited less than ten things that they found half of them stopped some time


the district court ignored all of the that the district court took the position that that u p s wasn't shown to want to take the good will of progressive but that's not the that's not what


confusion analysis the court here the court and thermostat however stated that they reversed that reversed confusion in the six circuit is the same regardless of the theory of infringement i'm sorry that


anything related to liability the two instances in that they used the declaration to support one was to say that the mark was registered in that there was no other mark on the us a registration list that also was


the complaint was in the affidavit of scott panning was that they needed to move to a bigger facility because of an expanding in rome and and then when we were able to


fact as to this factual dispute of what's whether or not actual dispute it has to be resolved i understand judge group and i think that the factual dispute is whether or not it's unreasonable to show one point blank twice in the chest ok so you say that the


who's the defendant this wasn't her regular job and she asked you know is this the right way to do it who who gets laid off suspected you were going to ask that the two


reports that show there were let's say eight officers that were involved in the strip search now which of the eight were in there in the bubbles on the other side of the wall so we don't know but we know that all of the girls or at least a handful of the girls that were in the room according to the strip search


claims so you claim can as your case for saying that well city of can i cite that and i also have a first circuit case wilson versus town of mend in which the court said there's nothing to prevent a plaintiff from foregoing the naming of an individual officer as a defendant and


that's actually not what's happening what's happening is that since the since the policy was changed you know corba telegram's not the only person does there's other shifts in other people so she's it's been sort of singled out of the staff of people who do it but what's happening now is that


discovery is long over long long over this case this is not like this we pulled the trigger that all this was was filed after discovery was long completed and we turned over the names of every male who worked on the floor every male deputy worked on


members of the public will be let back in space permitting that is the policy of the judge from this record was very let's acted contrary to that instruction was there not a stipulation that there


has discretion to have a hearing or not have a hearing but that discretion is abused where we've presented sufficient cause to be concerned about the conduct of the attorney his


questioning pointed out he actually said on the record this was the first time he was coming up with a theory so that's a sign of he said something the prosecutor said concerns me that's not it doesn't say concerns me for the first time i got a right from


ok well i would first like to speak about the fact that there is no michigan court rule statute or decision that says that an offer of proof must be made by


result of this of this earlier incident but between two thousand and two thousand and ten there were no incidents as moore was moved from facility to from one facility to another and


disclosed this is not a question of the direction of that it was not that's quite correct because under the michigan open meetings act discussions of settlement are


you know how to get them and i do but the client wouldn't know that that was the same individual because the client doesn't know this into the maybe on this ng something i did not understand the court in their department and junction understood the court and


his claims here if we take the first three grievances you do need to examine whether if we forget about the last two grievances so in other words if you disagree with our analysis on the interaction between pillory and rule fifteen you have to


johnson which was mostly divorced from that evidence most of that was there and so interesting lee the jury found that mr johnson was not in fact responsible for the murders that were the focus of


the operations and the routine for this kind of this kind of endeavor well he does say based upon his training and experience that's when all the introductory paragraphs essentially refer to he talks about this particular gang


testifying against the defendant not his co defendants pleads the fifth on redirect examination at that point court takes a break the fetter petitioner goes outside with his attorney an assett he file a motion


were the scored through firing if there was no ineffective assistance of counsel it would essentially be giving permission for attorneys like mr burnet mothers to take actions only for


said remained as not timely as he did ultimately in the end of it maybe he was just doing a comprehensive opinion it was he was addressing all issues raised even though he could have written a shorter i don't know we don't really know i don't know why he didn't


here like they're just trying to make contact with someone inside the house and i don't know how long did it take to get the word it took about three hours but hopefully get it yes he left at eight forty and there was testimony he didn't get back until about he got


i mean for their salaries were reduced is i mean are they in exchange for i think it's one hundred five thousand dollars isn't it correct that what they're giving the employer in return is


and look at the economic reality have looked at the fact that these were situations where the taxpayers tried to do something congress didn't intend and that's what's what's been under under


also unique about the n r a here is not only that the right at issue to take concerted act action in court or arbitration it's not simply rule twenty three as my colleague has pointed out it's two sixteen of the f l s say it's


assumption you're right about how to deal with the savings clause in the concepcion controls in other words what do you do next is that where you are well i'm just saying they've sort of not complaining i just want to i just want to read along and follow if


but we don't know until it goes back precisely and i think rather than engaging in the type of speculation that the state asked this court to engage in about all these factual issues what it means that he didn't raise it immediately in the forty five day window less than forty five days that he had to file his


i'll try to make it brief first the property cause is not at issue here we want to figure out the scope of the property cause of course that only gives congress the power whatever power property cause power congress


are allowed to just simply give out increases on wages without you need approval and there's no evidence in the record that any u l p was filed or alleged by anyone


this case under fitzgerald and how would you distinguish it from your honor if i could i know that we certainly are short on time but i want to make sure i answer your honor's question precisely with regards to mattoon the history was that this court committees for


shot was fired that there was no blood on the carpet in only blood found was in the kitchen that means that baby girl had to be have been moving away from the officers at the time the first shot was fired not towards the officers and certainly not at