to to to break apart or to build the case and we weren't being allowed to do that and i know there was a lot of frustration and the district was repeatedly cutting us off i am saying things like and it's in my


the statute mandates dismissal with prejudice of the complaint the primary issue in this case is whether this statute which the texas legislature itself described as one of the quote procedural


boss then it's going to have pretty severe consequences for him if he's going to sacrifice time with family versus doing time for the vase the difference the fact that it's a big difference between saying there will have been


had to receive evidence of knowing possession of the gun in connection with the other substantive count when they were ruling on whether he unlawfully transferred an unregistered shotgun they obviously knew that he had a gun and therefore the issue


line of giving people time but the servers issue this then brought up and i want you to speak specifically to that and from this context if we're speaking about purchases made within what's


citations for here but the important point is the purpose behind the puget complaint which was to protect consumers in the pacific northwest and the state commissions in washington and oregon specifically asked for


i'm not sure why he wasn't able to get it cording you know it was difficult some of the ones he had to have been lost because of his hurry in leaving the country he didn't there was no adverse credibility here


respondent in several points in the brief had stated that there was no established standards in order for the b i e a to sue a sponsor the real than a case however if there are cases that say that there is need to be exceptional circumstances


court would have to find that that is compelled by the record and not merely that there is some some evidence or even substantial as for would also point to the fact that on a council pointed out to the documentary evidence in the


have i believe this case presents that question to you horton leaves open the question of what the fourth amendment should mean when a person is arrested for something and they search the car having nothing to do with what he's arrested for


and in those articles they discussed the current conditions in afghanistan at the time of the hearing on page two fifteen to eighteen nice question about about exhaustion at the


problem with indicated that those kinds of contacts were primarily going on at the terminal level el paso phoenix and so the real issue was a benefit and a lot of the other cases


decide whether to strike particular jurors or to see them if that's what the prosecutor was doing he violated the constitution that i think is the background against which we evaluate the particular strikes against monta hano and stared at as to those i think also


jurors and the potential motives that many and that one might attempt to apply as to the excusal of those jurors there is no relationship to the way in which the motion was litigated in the trial court we are after all reviewing the


six months well it just means the government should recommend the forty six months now judge campbell frankly made where it revoked him anyway and impose the same sentence but what the defendant was entitled to was a government recommendation that


given that anybody can you can just up and move and get a new family registration and and then i j and government cancel misstate the expert testimony because he only mentions this floating pack relation for three sentences and his entire testimony


i think that the the weiner case still throws the same amount of credibility the same sort of analysis because there was the same attack for the very same reason upon that california statute and i guess that's where the weiner statue


undermines confidence in the sentencing outcome in this case trial counsel's approach to sentencing demonstrates that he did not understand the concept of mitigation he referred


judge how it would fail to consider the n i social personality disorder as he was as you had to wonder lockett in eddings in those cases but he just wouldn't give it much weight and i think that's a


include beyond a reasonable doubt that his version with one true do we have a physical description in the record of v j the person who according to mr brown and did the robbery


can always can be revised if it turns out contrary to the expat expectations that the claimant does become employer will again absolutely but if the treatment is not expected to return to result in any


had reason to understand reason which was bolstered by matheson's continuing to pay his medical bills that this was the natural progression of the arthritis set in motion by that traumatic


motion in his rule forty one motion he said if you pay my debt to someone else you are giving me the money we said fine this is his property let's look at his property as if this were john doe's


exhausted all of their investigative leads and mr mann should have been free to go but he wasn't he was held there search of mr binny's vehicle was done mr mayor was asked repeatedly for consent to search his vehicle and


your honor good morning terry scattered for the respond and the central question before the court is whether garcia is insulated from the immigration consequences of his firearms conviction which clearly is


suppose i suppose lewis made it to los angeles on his own power showed up at the house and he's living there for six weeks and then the smuggler comes by he says i need to collect my twelve hundred dollars interest the interesting question would go to whether or not the


just lost money or what in fact the smuggler require payment as part of the deal but i mean is the smuggling over it would seem there is living in the guy's house is the smuggling over he may have been in some other offense a visa an accessory or something reza


times have you helped your brother move us into the united states illegally and he answered that was the only time he didn't three separate admissions that he assisted his brother they enter illegally


case is so overwhelming that we can really just skip over the first comma we can have a mitigated showing on the first prong which is precisely what petitioner hopes to do in this case they hold together they hope to present to the district court such a compelling case on the aggravate or on the prejudice


transcript and here we don't know what happened at the plea colloquy in the paper they were allowed to look at that or any other paper it doesn't say he pled to count one and count one two three four if i was crossed out into forty two was written and everything else stayed the same he did


can't get in there at night without using his own card so it's going to be in a day time there's four hundred eighty storage lockers are there a lot of people that go in now plus there's these maintenance guys and delay no over me was in there with the


brandish and i couldn't find one because i thought that you were going to cross examine me with that but i don't think there are any that i'm aware of where somebody has a weapon that put it on a day and went to a violent crime you know and had it in a possession


always thought that immigration law should probably be the first place you get into that has a comparable style and walk that should be the place you have to seek asylum as opposed to the richest country but that's not the law fortunately no


issues that the court decided that on moral character and may have opined on hardship but but didn't actually determine that that's correct when this case goes back on remand it will go back to the board of immigration appeals


would you point me to the language in the i j a is order or anything else the i j a does or says that in your mind constitutes the adverse credibility finding i think in in the opinion he talks about the advice i've got the record here in front of me and let's read it together


the petition for rule making and that makes sense whenever you look at the big picture of what congress was trying to accomplish in this argument that we don't have that the district judge did not have jurisdiction that's correct i'd be happy to answer any questions about that but i'm not i'm not


off of marine engines most marine engines in fact i think all of them are water cooled and so and but he does that is a pollutant under the clean water act u p a might decide that that heat coming off of you know a certain class about say jet skis that's i do minimal source of


also a special subgroup of indonesians that face a greater risk then than the average disfavor group that is if if if that person is a woman and


this court to follow the community caretaking function kafirs about the community caretaking function of what we have in this particular case we have a police officer and patrol after two am in the morning


the facts were introduced you know not getting the asylum application on direct or on cross but at the very end after a short break with petitioners attorney and he explained that he had it in his shoulder which is why he


times i've said something you said no when we've talked through and it turns out that my suggestion seems to be correct because in this instance in that at the time of mobile sierra scene in the particular contract what happened from it is first in this instance that


us put it that way during that period of time and they certainly weren't picking a number that would make our job easier but if you look at the record in this case and what the commission found was that the


but significant buying power here exceeded the long run marginal cost he couldn't prove aren't not being able to prove that they exceed the long run marginal cost destroyed their case because if you can't can if you


who are implicated in converting hindus and the b j p is is a dominant party in in their area states in india including the state and from where the petitioner is from as well as bordering states so you don't think there's


fists and then kicked with boots before they threaten that they would burn him and his family alive and then the police detain him for six days during which time he was beaten with sticks while they're strapped and threatened with death if that's not persecution i'm not sure what it is what is persecution


ok we will proceed with united states versus rosemary macdonald houston and for the appellant


do to review is there hardship or are the positive equities greater than the negative the negative factors things where there's really no way to apply law i think here there is the fact that it's been fleshed out in regulatory standards shows


directly before what i'm talking about the confusion comes in trooper and soriano explaining to trooper rodriguez well i thought you meant you know what something when you get arrested on the side of the road like for a ticket i didn't realize you met when


a statute that said with respect to the pre bankruptcy predators of a particular railroad these predators when those predators loose and the law apply don't to only one railroad and the supreme court said well uniformity you know it means that congress can't pass bankruptcy


parcel of the legislative process and those actions which that apply policy again the lesson from forster v white from from the supreme court is things can be very very important to the administration of a government body


productive inquiry because for example in the traveller's versus suppose there had been an injury on board one of those barges in the early days of of its use when they were there were only one or two barges attacks and they had


conflating that term they can't use they should not be permitted to use the homeowner standard when the texas courts of so strongly said market value if the approach when you're dealing with a personal property is personal property like


question basically is just a problem that this tax question is a problem that really just affects allophone or it's a fact a lot of other insurers a lot of us there's a lot of these lawsuits out there should we sort of fire this to the texas supreme court i don't think it's necessary because i think


discussion of some of the negotiations and the word choices they made but we've never made that a legal position though your honor is there anything in the document which you told us to consider in detail the district court to consider it take that position


the st in which the parties say if there is a express remedies set forth in the contract then that's the rimini that you get and that's the measure of damages that you get the nd sentence reads if no remedy or measure of damages of pressley provided


reverse and render judgment in favor of our client based on those exclusions quite simply the allegations in the lawsuit were fairly sparse but the allegations


too this is sort of an esoteric question but but can you always as a result of pleading if someone tags on a sort of


factors moving to the prejudice issue the government never even attempted to argue prejudice then in a unsupported finding the district court said the government made a


sue it's difficult to see what's we're going to would be able to challenge an unlawful executive expenditure and that would mean that any president could spend any amount of money on any project that he or she wanted even if congress would consider had considered and rejected precisely that project


kid i think that's how the district court looked at it too your honor because what i read in the opinion in the order was obscure focus on the pinning rip period and what i'm asking the court to do is to consider


proceeding lasted it's more than double the front and the bakken combine two and a half years versus one year the district court did not of the if yes your honor if we assume diligence on this


it i'll be honest with you i've been in that in all my years i've been in that situation where and i was just discussing with co counsel this morning we've all been in that we've been in that situation where the images simply said that's it i'm i'm not going i'm


those that his entire defense is we put the money in the bank and well he doesn't say that we put all of the money in the bank it's to the extent we have to the extent we deposited it went into this particular bank that's different


excluded they basically have michael stating it's better to follow the law to do what you're supposed to don't cheat the otherwise you have the state and the or the county coming after you so


s energy that even remotely evidences heights as an essential function of his of his job


possible for that to apply here is that the arbitrators jurisdiction his authority is limited to what the contract says and he can't in the trying to do one thing violate the


can ask for these at any point even then that if we had known that was the rule back four years ago it would allow us d to assess whether we wanted to read to the abilities at that level before more


a go either way and so we can't look behind that determination regarding as to whether anything else would have also been helpful to your client just what's been there doesn't tell doesn't provide for relief for your client


taking out again animals so they can be autopsy to find out what the problem was that scientific but going into the tank in order to take care of live fish is not it makes no sense if in fact the mortality guides are


recommendation it does not mean that she is subject to an order of ten years of enforced mental health treatment it's only a recommendation that the young and the probation officer


that decision prior to his service on the jury or any allege request or refusal that he lied to avoid jury service that is there still was no disagrees nable jerk could think that's pretax right if if if the reason


knowledge of the protected activity has a say at least because in robinson there was also some evidence that the decision maker had changed his treatment of the plaintiff after having held it so my own the argument as to the illegal act


used its control of high end systems to force high end systems to grant marco a sweeping license to every bit of ip that high end systems or mr bellamy you had or ever will have in the future for a


your honor in the due diligence process the st time the company considered selling itself in two thousand and twelve mr bell of you was asked to do an analysis of our products not


only deprive your client of all the benefit of the high end license when the high end license continued to allow a sub licenses


supreme court explicitly rejected the argument and i quote that one return address to but one of the i abilities answers the purpose of both and the supreme are to explain that even if all of the information required for both taxes


hope that if the returns contain sufficient information to make the calculation the assessment then it starts a statute of limitations as you said that basically a


all based on purported variability in workers ships and assignments are just not supported by the facts such variability to the extent of insubordinate in five stars records that's already been taken into account in


army and the bankruptcy judges must ensure that provisions comply with the code even in the absence of the objection so the idea of the uniform plan structure what is this creditor bankruptcy judges and trustees in carrying out their


well in the complaint we say that state farm owes damages under the policy which creates the basis for five hundred and forty two dollars claim on liability that is the claim was not paid when it should have been made under the prompt act


that somehow the plaintiffs the arguer dominoes petition was insufficient to put state farm on notice of the claim is fanciful given the record evidence that demonstrates they clearly were as they were conducting discovery on it


testified it was not a judge can also had numerous documents in front of the month summary judgment and said you guys are on different planets i need to have a trial to resolve the fast the the factor that was most impressive to me


we're arguing your honor that and that's certainly how we get there to say that this provision is intended to displace the choice of law provisions that would otherwise be a political and the texas uniform for marshall code and i certainly recognize


contract a breach of the warranty that's the remedy breach of contract but here there would be no damages because the debtor got the product and sold it and kept the money so certain the death it's not damage and the bank got the money so they're not damaged either a see the time is


i'm not i'm not saying that a properly perfected security intro's would not be effective what i'm saying is that the texas legislature


no i don't think anything else other than the express changes that the texas legislature made in the statute i don't think and this was one of the things we call to the court's attention in our response brief that


does not tell me how to do it does not tell me who to assign it to it doesn't tell me the time to do it so again this is the board cherry picking you know random bits of testimony to ignore large swaths of testimony that are in the record that do


documents that show payment records the actual adoption agency records we wanted all would judge king wrote and it is squarely a political in this case is that you don't get the identities when you suspect that there's a need


days it's even harder to get this as i understand these people are taking away two b visas from other people who deserve them and so that's another set or plaintiffs and then of course american workers which is exactly who this


need a nd step of mailing something like you would need a wind so for example if someone had a lot of limited access to pornography i don't know that simply including some sort of disclaimer would be enough if there was something about that law that violated the state's


the court room when i ask you to be conscience and also i will tell you at the outset that the panel is completely familiar with the arguments made in your briefs and the key states is that you cited relied on so if you fail in your remarks


flies in the face of the point of language of the arbitration agreement in this case it requires reading things into the agreement just aren't there making assumptions that you start wars based upon the actual facts what conditions of the case and the


refco on appeal the second circuit has applied a bright line test and reffo is it is it is applying that applied that bright line test a very similar conduct because it involved a lawyer but the


defined in the air you are correct you are used to credibility and why can't you answer judgement bell's question she said is it compelling that we find must we find


extreme if at least the b i had has say i find his compelling and the others i discount them or somehow if they're going to reverse the i j s finding that the overall record shows torture


you can't pick and choose and put together and the commission recognized in appendix a and i believe that's where the error started it was the court is another question


something new the government has ignored and this and the judge just missed well it is different from what from anything that's in the guidelines and here's why it'll take me a couple minutes of playing this because it's technical with the courts indulgence the guidelines are set


case if you would smally because in effect what you're telling us is this is harmless or right i mean when you say this record isn't that clear the problem i'm having is i think it's pretty darn clear it's pretty clear that


i don't think that's where where we get off base because we don't just believe the basic proposition the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knows it the purpose is they can is to distribute it controls us we don't dispute that what we dispute is what


still a reasonable opportunity there was still a seven month period in which if they wanted to bring an action they could have brought an action and when you look at this case it is your position that you know the law is what it is and once once the laws change everyone is going to put on notice


that there was a conflict between more decisions on the issue that we raise an opposition for reconsideration that was never abandoned by us that was always raised by us so that that issue was never reconciled when when judges


what i be happy to talk about that that construction i believe that first of all you can uphold the court and it don't have to agree with them on that particular issue there are other bases and i think they're in the record and it's pinion


if anybody thought that this was a tremendous boon for lawyers no lawyer stepped forward and said to the plaintiffs here we'll help you out here just didn't have is anything on the record other than from the parties and he saying this is the same i


had that exclusion american wife a very i'm sure it's companies that would have written that are for your honor as far as i understand there was no there was no request for first of all five million dollars worth of coverage number two


how i strongly disagree they work for the plan and that's the key part of our argument because the plan in the class no no that's part of it they are like last year because that's where these claims arose but class b is administrative claims we clearly the


one was whether or not it's unknown so the known is in the actual class itself so so yours you're seeing that that the defendants know that's not where they are with not the class that's the the conduct if anyone is in the prison they would be if


not produced until after it was not is until after the discovery had ended and after even a year or so after when councils appoint him and after the judgment and so that's when that's why a motion


that they weren't before the immigration judge until there until there i won forty petitions the night before the attacks so they i mean they were in the country throughout that period of time mr


i can't think of an instance off the top of my head where they would that would be interesting if counsel wants to give us some supplemental a letter about that issue of the jurisdiction of the b i a to do to get involved if


being charged with being in admissible under the first provision of the mandatory detention statute which only requires a crime to fall within the provisions of eleven he was never legally it will be in this country right correct is to my knowledge never had any type of lawful


meant the common pleas who are that tried the case was not the same common pleas judge who ruled on the p c r matters that right judge simpson tried the case right


your client is willing to talk to police that he went there as a good faith husband trying to help and to show that the police wouldn't look anywhere else and they were trying to basically frame mr mcbride because that's essentially that the theory and frame up defenses are are


molesting children or for possession or for transmitting or trading or they had there was evidence of downloading or there was possession or something else that ties the individual


as well as as well as the evidence of attempted destruction which you know i can drink out of that i don't have a problem but then we go to trial and and what you come in with are


you now the defense position all along was the theory was to attack the government experts conclusion that the mark was authentic and the way he did that was we have agent will gross


did you i would ask without belaboring the point there's a second issue with the rule sixteen issue it's very secondary but it would go to the remedy that discovery of the discovery issue it goes to the


verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely an attributable to the error and i can demonstrate that ok well help me because i


there's no appeal involved but sometimes the jury doesn't do what you think they're going to be in it and you get a verdict for the plaintiff and then you have to bite the bullet and say this is


and i think that that an arrest warrant serves or arrest or search warrant serves a very important purpose and would have served it in this case to say to the unwilling


man banging and saying let me in period he's actually lucky that the person inside didn't have a gun and defend herself with it because that would have been a defense in a homicide case that was just a crazy


the alcoholic beverage commission new jersey law itself prohibits the new jersey alcoholic beverage commission or any agency from interpretating a statute passed by the legislature in ways that nullify the statute


buy directly over the phone or the internet right right the friedmans how do the friedmans have any standing to raise any claim friedman's for the freedmen say that they have been denied that they would like


would agree that it would be a generous before ok but at the end he does it again and says you should take it upon pill for clarification in addition you have to i think it is a significance to the point in which this did


admission initial admission strip search and strip search and have a visual observation of all cavities oral anal and that remains the policy of the federal courts if i were to be held by this court in contempt


the their everybody that comes in whether you're a murderer whether you have a serious a person who might have reasonable suspicion for us to strip search they're in this quarantine area and you are there


forum that your books to be and then you don't have a question of presumptively for a court to decide to what extent does your position really give the arbitrator the the essential right to determine its own jurisdiction does it give too much i'm sorry to the


who are narrow but we don't reach rightness if we don't get past tending to we of which is why i spent probably seventy three on standing and then when i started to prepare for oral argument i realized how strong the right in the storage


said here appears to violate that and i have a history of down pursuing these they took the opportunity of the white case to reinforce their campaigns what we have in pennsylvania rightly or wrongly is


balancing test and a factors on timely contention such as your honor proposed in the ass track can be heard they getting back to this case in the record in this case there were not sufficient


hundred fifteen g it prohibits your client from proceeding under section one thousand and fifteen by virtue of his three strikes is that correct that is not correct sir we would disagree on for several


won't be given their due a court if counsel is not available during three summary judgment discovery because that time as you know is one many cases live or die and if those factors are not given there you consideration and so after summary


specific defendant now your client here got a full blown hearing yes for a continuance a few times got it got a full blown hearing what and in plain error with the rules we we all


jersey act wrote this argument to save some time and hopefully for some clarity if that if it is a clearly established right there the procedural hurdles of recovering damages and of the magnusson


select a honda or the consumer to go back and select the honda at that dealership spend over ten thousand dollars after purchasing the warranty i think that that fits squarely within the timing arrangement where as in


and yet the clear thing that was missed by the district judge was a cite to souter so how can the program alton's failure to cite souter in its motion to


their reply that that that holding is substance soon by the dicta in the case which provides for other avenues into court the question is how to harmonize those sixty eight


that they saved after every single day when they never told her what she was doing wrong or how she'd go about correcting it or anything on those lines that they were secret into her into a file the file was this big it's on the videotape he held it up and he says if


test is easy in two instances number eleven on the statue on its face provides an answer which it doesn't here and secondly when a state court decision definitively definitively answers the question and we have that here the


pattern jury instructions and mathis also allows us to take a peek at the record of conviction and there is information out mathis dictates that of state law doesn't


obvious and open on his condition


for but this seems like you know one of the garden variety determinations products got a made under dog but is he qualified is his opinion informed by what the cases say so go to the heart of it you know the law isn't that far


would play an important role in selecting the senate and returns the reasonable doubt standard the th circuit pattern jury instruction after the jury of this which you rely on these facts in the most important of your daily


said cops should be able to read the rules in what context that it was up to the cop to understand not to follow what his chairs had told them as to what the standards for scholarship were but they him to determine whether or not the


and did not explain what her check boxes meant the review committee as did the appeals committee later actually found that the reviewers in the chain up to that point were not arbitrary and capricious in their decision making and they had relied on the evidence in place at the time to


stated programatic purpose of the stop has been achieved and there's no reasonable suspicion actively reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior going on and then they should be free to leave mr molina in his passengers were


listen testifying that this was historically true they had always paid it from the beginning of the contract so how then did the district court reject the evidence of reliance well the district court actually didn't reach that issue


may be that you have to satisfy a business expense


platform now it would be the same sort of thing everybody who mostly everybody working out there has a job everybody has an obligation everybody has something that needs to be done and if you're out there well that's somebody's got to do it we've got to get the


you still it's a basic element to prove stablished protected activity yes your are going to address the i'm going to jump forward to protect activity and i'd like to jump back because i have one more important point i think needs comment


rehabilitation act i imagine there are some cases that applied for your residual statute of limitations this is a bit of a nuance and perhaps i'm guilty of my legislative history background but the our case in the rd circuit was one that i argued and had discovered through


so i mean to me there is this disconnect if you assume they had actual knowledge then then there's you know if it's not appropriate at all to allow this person to stay in the school so why don't you talk about the actual knowledge that the district court assume but we can still


blindly rely for that information in fact he has his investigation his independent investigation reveals that that's not what occurred and he made a recommendation from the intake investigation that he conducted


just simply agreeing to drop their you know their their people which they don't appear to be willing to do one thing on your side that you responded earlier either to mr judge parkhill somebody else is that a potential something further being pursued in just a


names and contact information of all of the eyewitnesses that were not county employees were redacted and because the video has no sound which we identified in our motion we contend


parents admit that the purpose of the request to discovery was not to flesh out a material fact dispute but instead so that quote parents understand counsel can provide guidance excuse me appropriate guidance to their clients after learning whether defense


that the discovery can be tuned that is merely tailored to uncover the facts that the district court decides that it needs to have resolved before the rule i don't mean to attend a judge


despite the fact that darden said it was clearly established in two thousand and thirteen which flowed precedent and or rule of orderly orderly as these events took place in two thousand and fifteen so the rule as announced two weeks ago in the circuit is if that


as mr hobbs attempted to cross interstate thirty five dollars defendant warren instructed his then wife to drive towards mr hobbs now two to the questions that were posed to mr


positions but here when we look at the police the pleadings we don't know for better or worse how long it was between the moment that warren saw and the moment that hobbs acted i don't think that saying that warren


that but we haven't actually decided it i look to see that there's a circuit split a healthy majority do recognize the possibility of that as a due process claim but i i take it you're asking us to actually officially recognize an error but i don't see where


you would think that they cover some different thing what in your view is the difference between a motion for reconsideration and emotions rio in this case there's very little practical difference your honor if we ask for both because the practice manual process


twice with nancy nord the request to admit that the georgia lawyer mitch into the court earlier that was during the unfortunate proceeding to ban the sale of bucky balls judge reeves let them take that request for admission not tell them


there were three active members nancy nord in anniston involved the commissioners delegate its safety and hazard investigations to the office of compliance the office from of compliance


station i'd like to turn it from a to the honest belief and i course the city agreed with the courts of the trial court's honest belief because because of the the factual history you


determines that's a credibility way and he has to get into the minds in motive someone to make that determination and it also involves playing the evidence and him by doing that


and we can say that i don't i can't really judge lynn's mind at the time when i read her ruling i did the to the tip i don't i don't believe necessarily was part of her main concern and that was just do the question that


we can't take back that fact that is up but that is not per se illegal if he selling c d s if it's his own cd that's not illegal if it and ops are never tried to ask him all he in


is a commercial activity seemed to be used against you because you're not a pure science lab i agree with you and let me suggest i've


definition is just is narrow enough that you really can't get around that word sole purpose i think the legal numeration of the what you know what constitutes in these commercial diving tasks though that's probably just sort of a little bit of a redundancy because those are


mr perry gave me something of an answer with due respect both of em and that is it on the mississippi law the imperative is to make both who visions conflicting provisions work if at all possible


immediately dispelled believe the vehicle driven by mr corey smith of bore no license plate were tags which is a misdemeanor crime in mississippi where you're not been testing the stop you're not contesting the


on that topic was it that something that is radioed into dispatch and it's sort of a passive what's called in it sort of passive behavioral i'm just sit and wait for the result come in it's not that he's on a keyboard looking things up actively during that time i


actually find out the truth about this alleged misconduct and in fact mr espinosa was probing beyond that when he knew as a matter of fact that mr reitman had called mr ramirez or at least tested him about the lawsuit


the court looked at a new act of protected activity that didn't exist in this case meaning what happened there was the employee initially engaged in protected activity and then stepped out of that box and engaged in subsequent different protected activity by


when buckingham's credibility is a get attacked in closing and then we use it only for local purposes so i think it's a program for the jury to ask a question about it to be considering it for those purposes that it was


and responsibility for among other things these murders after that point after that st ten months is when motions filed by the government start to extend the time the st of those motions is an unopposed


right thank you and we're sorry about the little delay one fellow i had trouble with is internet connection in the last argument and where it where he apologize for having you appear in this unusual fashion


i can't tell what you're arguing because at the end of year three you say well we want the judge to make this determination but we don't want to make that determination you say we're not advocating whether the putative class members are truly


a's argument in this court it is not limited to parties that are closely related or that are affiliates and the court should reject dime a's attempt to add a new requirement for a direct benefit system for this prong of direct benefits to stoppel the only two requirements


that i would say no and the reason i would says there are the courts of recognize that it is separate documents call to pay or acknowledgement is not required that's in the scott and white case and the g p a holding case both


no drilling in the visit no withdrawing case involved a purchaser of rope who did bring the lawsuit but they weren't suing on the contract that had the arbitration clause in it so the court


outside of a risk the plan defines usable reach will target usual and reasonable charges to be same as the contract rates here so a receipt really does not apply this is not something that's being done in the sort of


and support that decision and that's why we


to reverse and have a new trial so let's hear from any significant in terms of how things went down this was their principal witness right and he had no access to the source so everything he said was based on the machine and that was


and three that his testimony failed to prove the comparing the taishan of the ninety six to patent particularly because he admitted that you don't we reviewed a very small portion of the relative source code related to that limitation so so the district court has done our


simply a socially lawyers


to the relevant timeframe from february one thousand nine hundred six when he met the scheduler requirements under four one six a for a combined rating of seventy percent is actual mathematical ratings if you use


like he had a disability rating that increased to ten percent ninety seven to twenty percent in two thousand and four and to forty percent in two thousand and five so you're suggesting that if he were to win on the


case will that where does bad faith come into that why is that part of the requirement do you think i know you don't think but i'm asking you to


separate out her problems with the business toward conduct from the actual to eighty five analysis it is clear your honor that the court was distressed by the parties conduct with respect to business torts but i don't think the


that's at page thirty four in a thirty five and they're addressing the next condition whether there's evidence that his muscles or something wrong with his muscle or joint they're not addressing pain they're not disputing that he's suffering from pain but they're saying


objective evidence in those cases i mean so i'm not sure that the argument you're making would really be the sky is falling because there has to be some objective evidence i get the estimate that you could manufacture right


really important to look at the context of eleven seventeen the purpose was to to fill the presumption where the medical community wasn't able to put labels on what were real illnesses that persian gulf that are and were returning with it


entire mouse and they get to the controlling a switch feet argument ok so on page eighty six they say there's a dispute about one limitation to controlling the switch limitation


failure to engage in the foreseeability analysis that's required by indiana michigan truck court found that the foreseeability wrong was satisfied merely by showing that the plaintiff acted in good faith and commercially reasonable commercially reasonable and then didn't


at examples three which they relied upon there is just one statement in example three that says during the second deposition period handle him from the first step is ition


that was the reason for the work rejecting their expert the board rejected their expert because they said he used the wrong plane construction which seems to me based on what you've been saying is a logical flaw in the board's analysis because you're saying


the time that process was finished we had pledged satisfactorily to that fill the court and that's all i have to say about that i mean it it he felt like our pleadings


and the problem is that if fact that was not the case then that factor should not be considered materially in deciding a penalty because his potential for rehabilitation is as we know the so called douglas factors


indicating he was driving in fact your honor i don't know that i know you once ok i don't think there's anything in the record suggesting that he had been drinking or that that played a part in what was going on there's a lot of it understanding to be saying is that quite


combination all the screenshots of the steps by which they practice each of the steps of that invention so this is not a question of merely circumstantial evidence alone think the circumstantial evidence is strong this is evidence of


really need a body right i mean it's clear the circumstantial evidence of this your honor i think that circumstantial evidence is sufficient but then the question becomes what does this court said about the level of circumstantial evidence and what use what the court has said is


courts poly america case that had to do with blown film being a fundamental characteristic of the invention selective rotation here is a fundamental characteristic to response to the argument that it's not that in the prosecution history that it's not a


to allow somebody to carry out a procedure or if you want to do a checkup and see if they've been carrying out the procedures well you want to know if it was a difficult harbor heart bypass or whether it was a simple heart bypass and building codes give you that type of granularity so you can get not just heart bypass


by all of this is in our previous we've argued that lance what is really at stake here is already going to allow equivalence of in for infringement by equivalence of means plus function claims to be undermined by a claim construction that


use it in the context of trying to figure out a people who will be good leaders and that's who the patent is completely independent third party i mean we have nothing to do yet or its content and yet he uses exact


end there is a single arm that is dedicated to the cover function i'm sorry it to the cutting sumption right in between there are two arms the knot that are both required both required to perform


decision that the court was reviewing made a finding of fact that the veteran had perfected an appeal asked for the reduction and then two thousand and nine boards said he perfected that appeal but the board in eighty four didn't have to address that


issue because the rule did not apply there are two different issues aren't there really there's one in the sixty five issue which is whether he should have been terminated because he didn't show up for a medical examination and your argument there is they didn't make an


which i don't think it is ok it's just a conclusory statement of the ultimate of the ultimate conclusion it doesn't explain with any particular any why some are still in the art would see it to be substantially the same and not different in fact that the world wide web


he's either in this is just wording the original opinion he's either going through and saying and taking into account change circumstances or he's going through and making a will from this inquiry without taking into account what the objective reasonableness


painstakingly considered all the rulings he made in this case particularly those which affected the ultimate outcome all of the trial court's decisions in this case should be affirmed by this court the first question


report and refused to let apple's expert testify about that not infringement theory that that substantial relief which i'm sure my colleague will agree was prejudicial to his side of the case


questionnaire they expressed in the absence of a few point they took no position you haven't seen the final question and they have given it to us no your honor they took a very limited view of the record that the only thing that was relevant most the one question and that's all that but on the


participation in s k f the court found the provision of questionnaire responses was sufficient to meet that criteria of active participation but if the purpose of the statute is to reward pardons


this situation correct not just any object investor in a different set of facts and in this particular situation had the tax benefits and other financial incentives been completely exhausted so anyone since that's the case would have been


to ask about that i asked about just what happened factually what happened if there was discovery preceding the voyage and that line if that's the prejudice he meant or when he talked about the prejudice to the pardons with regard to expert reports yet at that that was


our position on that is very simply obsessive complex with complete but doesn't notice it's substantial when it's under low pressure conditions and i can imagine that when you're


instructive on this claim thirteen had no structure for what the transfer means was and both parties agreed and the court below found that the structure to be readed to the transfer means it claimed thirteen was again a vacuum chamber


that we're going to look at the motor and look at things on the perhaps the non business side of this device behind the distractor point and assess whether those meet the limitations of transfer means even if you could read them into transfer means they


defined in different ways and in two places


united states court of federal claims so you're asking us to do some significant rebut rewriting i think it's fifteen o two now maybe historically there's a basis for that and you can you could say that the rewriting is is justified but it is it


writing and her commitment to the law and really mr if and when i do let her go and if and when she be nice we look forward to her continued this ship as a part of our family and i'm sure


some of the calculations with regard to their partner level tax liability write it well and it seems to me the statute doesn't that the computational but just human language of the


link now there may be other patents that are used as well so the question is as are substantial investment in this licensing attributable to more than one patent it is but we should be punished for having more than one patent if we were just


a sole industry with a single patent i suppose it would be easier to show but i think trying to divide it up among all the patents that might be used is unnecessary that investment should be accredited to all the past three years and it's a substantial amount


with respect to that two hundred forty ninth even if people just own the patent at don't really care much about it well now you're shifting over to the patent licenses the technology licenses you get the design it is what it is you use it in a product and it may use


fine and as your honor is indicated is one twenty below under the guidelines range


complaint not part of any purpose to expose wrongdoing on the part of the lena what he alleges is i'm double checking my interpretation of the colds with these agencies not that there's nothing in the complaint saying


it's properly within the strict scrutiny bucket but even if it's not there's not an issue under pike balance and given what we have here in terms of the statistics of who the players were in the indiana likely manufacturing market before and after the effective date


that any potential alibi witnesses wouldn't have overcome that and so there we do have a state court decision on the sufficiency of the evidence you would never if the shoe were on the other foot be arguing to us that a discussion of alibi witnesses


se hearing but the second thing is he's constantly disrupting and interrupting the court he's also for example he said he's calling the court your honor and he apologizes and you know it's i mean to talk to the judge i


is legal or ok the facts are the facts what we said we did say i'm not denying that any of these conversations took place when i am saying is that when you apply the facts to rule


statement is the case it contains the substantive information that gives rise to the liability against all the defendants through the two name defendants security guards defended


the available medication so because the state so clearly unreasonably applied strickland you know this court today we just need to focus on the dyno the question of whether there was a constitutional violation here and there clearly was


which also speaks to councils obligation to have found this kind of evidence but it certainly was not a categorical finding that that evidence could be mitigating just because of the kind of evidence that was


request a republican ballot of whatever political bent they are and and vote in the republican primary we have no contracts republican party have no control over that it's not a factor honor we have very little control over who is even going to be on that primary ballot because illinois


on your theory is that the creditor can sit on the claim the money goes away and i'm not but i'm not going to bill it until nine or ten years after its bill going well well so i would just speak the premise of


and titles a jury to infer that she acted with a retaliatory motive in addition there is other evidence in this case that ms birch had animists


requires remained that said there were no other issues with the determination of the loss amount or the forfeiture amount because both of those were tied to the breadth of the scheme and the


instead is we're going to say if they come into your system again in particular if they get a felony conviction then we'll say you've complied as long as you register those people and so what governor quinn indicated


and some of these other points could cause a judge to revisit a lot here judge much needs to be revisited but restitution my client we've said in the briefs i'm saying it again is agreeing to pay the rest of the things that were


still question him there's no doubt about that but say thinking they may as long as it doesn't over bare his will but they cannot say things that will land on this defendant as they promise they should never say


in the timeline there that are helpful here the plaintiff alleges that he worked in texas from one nine hundred ninety eight to two thousand and eight he alleges that during the period two thousand to two thousand and ten there were several occasions when he was orally


damages are because it looks to me as so he gets credit for for the six days that he's detained pretrial when he gets the twelve day sentence and we can't challenge the sentence without setting the conviction aside but you're not asking us to


didn't know about this particular defendant per se but certainly through the proceedings before the judge through the participation of the state's attorney's office that a participation of the probation department there was aware there was paperwork


with respect to the sheriff sheriff is just a elected official yeah where is his discretion i understand your argument about the prosecutor you can say the prosecutor never should have brought the charge because the prosecutor knows about these


testimony as being credible the court didn't specifically find that but referring to their testimony there's certainly no indication that the court has different q so we accept that view we also except


it took up the majority of the witness testimony time and it seems to be that they're saying well the judge did not make any credibility findings or find mr berrill credible or credible because she did not specifically say soul in


if that's relevant it's hard for me to imagine that it would not have fed relevant for mr simpson to be able to in some way try to address or rebut that evidence and the way to do that was with these two


the best evidence of that is the may eleventh affidavit because in preparing for this argument the one that he's challenging here was the april i'm sorry the april eleventh affidavit what he's challenging here but we obtained a wire on for santiago and santiago


the standards set by the supreme court in the contest case beginning with the issue of standing last year the supreme court in spokeo reconfirmed the fact that the injury in fact element of standing includes a separate and distinct concreteness component


appeal the state of wisconsin came to mr williams and said i'm not going to pay you for any of the work that you've done for mr reynolds past or future you're not going to get paid for any of the other cases you're working on for us and you're never you're never going to get another case from us


right he is not being removed to the country where he fears persecution so that's great for him he doesn't have to go back to honduras he doesn't know what's going to happen doesn't i mean any time he's just in a withholding status something could change at any moment


antibiotic for the ten days that was ordered by the ship so we miss a day and there is their arm of the resident well that's not a stretch to say if you don't get your medications in a timely manner that might harm a resident what if the other is she didn't put the bacterial it went on a pressure sore


anywhere and that's not someone that he could avoid rosewood statement of issues in its brief talks about whether or not these failures in investigation and reporting


trying to set forth a clear scheme to provide direction to petitioners on where they may file and that is why you would argue the statute speaks of that petitions may be filed only in certain courts depending on whether an


deeply troubled by the absence of the currency again being disposed of a so that there could be no scientific testing of the currency by a laboratory and so this theme seems to go throughout this case from the time that the case was in front


because if mr wallace was any further than ten feet behind mr sanders and he was not in that alley he was in the adjacent lives and we know that because officer wallace testified about the location of the garbage can where mr


opposing side has explained that as as details of that had been publicized i'm wondering if we had if you have any response to that general point and whether we


ignored secondly is the briefs point out there was not a final decision there was a court of illinois law the decision must be in writing it must be subjected to a vote


position they were able to make that unilateral change and there was no problem with that i believe that in a company with the brokers understanding of the business practices and that the custom of practice in the warehouse


through the through the testimony of mr olson the manager of the warehouse he indicated that he had three hundred sixty five other clients that he delivered goods to through double the express and that not one of those customers used the warehouse for see


that is a theory of why they're trying to excuse exculpate themselves from relying on the ca they're just they're just alleging breach of contract right they don't need to plead waiver in your view cited to us illinois pleading requirements


all types of fraud the statute is a little bit more complicated than that the fraud waiver itself doesn't apply to every kind of fraud somebody might commit at any time the board's recently addressed the


harms but it makes sense no your honor under bet the damages for a battery are different than the damages under title seven under title seven she can seek back


if an opposing party that required to depose every individual referenced in a multi hundred page deposition then discovery would never come to an end and would be far more burdensome


every opportunity to provide the requisite information to the human resources department she failed to do that she at most left voicemail messages for the human resources department but in this litigation she never once came forward with


within weeks if he was committing fraud he could have tried to cover his tracks and withdraw the return in fact the i r s told him just withdraw your return otherwise you're going to be fined and you're going to face criminal prosecution instead what you have is five months of


we said we're not relying on i think what we said was you don't need to reach those and perhaps that that maybe that means the same thing to your honor's it does not mean the same thing to me and i don't think that was what was intended to be conveyed by that


get treatment started yet what's interesting here is that they never actually started on those physical tests and so all of this whole delay is was associated with just determining if she would


that just doesn't sink in i mean you know it seems to me that could happen with an autistic person that might be able to happen but there's no evidence whatsoever in the record that he did in this instance what we know is that the government was


also says very clearly the question and hackett was looking at actual harm versus likelihood of harm and said the question is not whether the victims of the alleged


in your window naked causes harm i have what i'm what i'm what i'm saying judge merrick it is that is that new jersey makes a distinction here and and new jersey


we can't lower expectations so can you give us more they asked for more information from they came back with nothing and again it's undisputed that this fall or was given plenty of time to do her work they gave her less for


the offense level goes down by four level and that drops a cent in the brain but then you bring the question forgive me i'm not being very clear what leads us to believe there's a reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome


didn't have the district court do it over again what i understand your argument to sort of be well yes the district judge mentioned the wrong guideline but we all sort of know what happened here it was just a he


misspoke so trust us he misspoke but isn't that a little imprudent isn't the prudent thing to do to send it back and say well tell us what you really meant i think that would be prudent that would be on the high end of


accepted his notice without the court's permission original when the council was granted least withdraw that would be the problem of leaving you know a criminal defendant who is scheduled for trial without an attorney and obviously if he can just be


think i wasn't involved at that time when the plan was confirmed nonetheless you are you have the ability to go back and say no i don't want to get it which is i have a right to get well my understanding is that the confirmation of the plan


that any of that if that's what had this panel can look at those and look at cases like today on board and how pennsylvania actually applies its law and even judge amber to extend again at this court feels constrained by its precedence at


leads are comparable but receiving pay while you're on leave is not itself a benefit the paid leave itself is the benefit you can't break them up into the some pieces in gerrymandered them so that you can so that you can stay to claim


and secret information like their internal manuals or production the way they manage production internal information that they keep secret regarding pricing those sorts of


proceed on either money damages remedy or the injunctive relief that she wanted to seek so there was no discussion in fact the supreme court and farmer discusses injunctive relief in this context much more frequently than than the money damages


what's in the middle should be filled in i mean i mean that cuts against you right i haven't seen a supreme court case that has recognized the right of access that on and on the on the filing of a notice of appeal i don't think this court has recognized


directed does a lot of work here and that that what he's released from prison the probation office might not require him to register was sort of is that your argument that that's certainly one aspect of


you that is that is correct that it is correct that they are two different things and apparently they don't have any interest in doing any additional projects so they have decided that they would concede that point but they nonetheless they want to continue to


and that but that ultimately it's a balancing that ultimately the parties can use economic weapons and the national labor relations act also supports the use of those economic brackets on both ends both on the union end and on management that management


is one of the bases for being in federal court having removal are you prepared to say on the record here that you're not going to be seeking to enforce a class action


they say we say this complaint sounds in fraud clearly it does but even if you say it sounds a negligence the argument that they say the argument that they use to support negligence and you find it


quality of any service isn't is an advertisement for which you need permission or an opt out is to send by fax that's all we have to do is include an opt out notice that doesn't this go back to whether you're looking at this


something could have been written more written more clearly than it was does not make it invade us and ambiguity as to be judged in the context of particular circumstances that's the teaching of the new activision case that came out after the district court's order you have


cannot read the statute as mandating a across the board national emergency amount it is to be driven it is expressively to be driven by the actual


it interferes with their sovereignty and their decision to have an estate statute and exempt the reporting wire and or certain kinds of property so you're just to be clear your legal position is there's no state


out if if i understood the district court rectally to court said that this case was in


between the st and the for rd that's factually different i mean that's that's legally different in terms of it's a new legal theory or anything else i certainly don't between the nd in the rd and you forfeited any objection


this case to that's how i read page nine footnote none is supplemental brief so i think now you are not contesting that adding these new facts or statements based on the same paragraphs of the offering documents is preserved


was trying to make is in this case we don't have to decide where to draw that line because it is so clearly on the side of merely adding factual particularities as judge in hell it's the same claim same defendant same action


claims in a products claim if you put an inherently dangerous product out in the marketplace it doesn't your conduct doesn't matter doesn't matter whether you were a care home or not careful or whatever you're just fine carries the love for the of the consequences of


assume assume we're kind of in the ballpark there what is wrong with the district court looking and saying you can pay this and you can pay it without paying all your prison wages you can


just because of age and yes that's certainly possible at that point you know maybe someone in those type of situations would be agent indigent because they are not able to work they are not able to earn anything and then on on page thirty three


settlement or consent decree neither are present in this in fact just this year the supreme court's decision of so over says wiener further limited one's rights to collect attorney's


the campus or into the school i don't know if it's adopting a new rule of law your honor a hybrid because i think i think that the pennsylvania supreme court in that j s case was faithful to both the supreme court decisions and what's new a new rule offer us


i advise my client that the supreme court has said all the circuits now have to agree that arias are exempt and i do apologize to the court i was under the impression that they were under fifty


credibility of the alleged victim in this case which was the eleven year old charo this court has stated that prosecutors cannot


to have a hearing and even the prosecution brought and he to the courtroom and she was available for examination as well and he said now you know i'm i'm not going to rehash the whole


c district but not x y z district and i have reasons and maybe you and i don't agree with those reasons but this is a reason we want to use it in nebraska or don't want to use it in nebraska and why will use it in texas


should be and then credit him the four months accordingly now mr surprise the d s is left with b so out of it and i understand you're in a difficult position because can he now go to a judge after this appeal on a twenty


one of these real estate transaction cases where the gist of the action economic loss doctors aren't even mentions it is beyond dispute that the consumer protection law was promulgated by the


allegations that insurance carrier would still have to defend the torque claim even though the tort claim has been thrown out of the case is your position closed my position is the the court has to


identified it is and it's not it can to malicious prosecution and because the courts have held that these are distinct towards the lower court was correct in treating it as such right


discern from pennsylvania law and this court's decisions the decision principally crucial union the answer to the question without certifying the matter to the pennsylvania supreme court because we know that in


that either were insufficiently compelling and sufficiently ex either independently or in the aggregate insufficient to garnish sentence for talks and but there's no basis in the


at that point in time she demonstrated her competence as one can see from her engagement in the proceedings she was able to answer the judge's questions the do you feel your power is only one question


law separates the issues from other issues concerning liability or remedy if you look at the l i principles on which the gates factors are models the question there is whether essentially the district court can appropriately carpet the joints and


permits and regulations referenced in subsection ten each are the ones regulating us steel's facilities the process is in emissions should the district courts or should the district court have


to do is have emissions governed by permits and it doesn't say they have to be in compliance with the permit it doesn't say they have to be mentioned in the permit rather the question is are they subject to it and here


in significant chance that there'd be a substantial award so the seven fifty was sort of an approximation of a twenty to twenty five percent chance of course and scope of time the magnitude at the outset and so what happened was as some of the other side may have something to say about we


seven hundred fifty thousand dollars they charge them one hundred twelve one hundred twenty six cents for every dollar that they settle the case as their administrative fee and then when they file this action they claim that in the complaint as stated in our brief that was


mutual to spend its own money and it just doesn't make any sense liberty mutual new and snow values you know that liberty meet you had a twenty five thousand dollar retention under the general liability policy that's in their


there was also evidence that in fact he had been shot in the back so it's clearly there the evidence the state of the evidence was such that the jury it was enough for the jury to determine what in fact happened that is the jury's decision to decide


elements to it you also have to fall back number one it was not there was no one there is no infringement ok but what if they do find infringement then you have to address the issue of damages you want to mitigate any exposure for your clients what you do is you gather scope


to that language in la pierre we said the right to counsel includes right to counsel and present for the entire line of presentation which helps you then it says well we recently declined to decide whether the witness preparation stage triggers the right to counsel


no that did not come into evidence the argument is as to prejudice and how he was hurt by this is that that caused the charging decision the next


hill and saying of this this issue is not part and so i think that goes a long way to say that if we had in fact raise that they would have found it barred on a legal basis that we can discuss here today look on the record and that fits in with the familiar appellate rule


evidence not considered by the district court included very critically the fulton state hospital records these records evidence very similar to the pate case that mr payne has records were not before the state trial


i think as i read the safeco case the court is saying you haven't shown there was a breach of the duty to defend and by saying well you know weren't happy with your lawyer you didn't think they were adequate you know unless you can show there was a breach of the duty then then


union or employee initiated grievance procedure where you have sequence will steps that you have to go through each of the steps in order to get to arbitration that basically the employer must go to court the employer can't go


i guess the question is does the court have the authority to do the multiplication in the judgment award or does it have to be done by the jury so there's a finding of fact of thirteen thousand dollars i mean of thirteen offenses the minimum statutory penalty the civil penalty as the minimum for each such a


proposition that washington mutual's payment of overdraft constitute the extension of credit ceiling and regulations even if i credit as and i quote the right to defer pay a man of debt or to incur debt and deferred payment


exhibits a and b to the complaint which recites that the fee is the same whether an item is paid or returned the district court relied on plaintiff's own allegations with respect to whether there is an agreement or not an agreement


before we could even file a response or pleading my client has to make a statement saying that under oath and it may incriminate him that he's the owner of the property and other blood some point in the civil proceeding


member anyway reaching that is correct but i still have my own five minutes with something to say that whatever please the court is just we need to know obviously before we


got the search warrant and in the meantime mr georgian had told the officer that there are many other items of stolen property in the house then when they come to the howells the wreath is gone and all of those other stolen property items


question i understand but i don't think anything that's been provided to either the bankruptcy court the bankruptcy pilipino or this court establishes that there was wrongful sextet that's not


the employee who has the burden of using reasonable self help to manage his or her commuting length which direction and that follows from employment long a wide variety of contexts commuting under


we are not disability discriminators when we need to we accommodate our disabled employees we allowed he used to work from home as a reasonable accommodation for his disability for three years but now


another way if you didn't say on reflection i found it a little more reliable what she did was found the same thing she found the first time except applied to different remedy without explanation moreover i would think even if she had changed her mind it would still be an abuse


saw packages that looked as though they might contain drugs go into are coming out of that house whereas they'd seen cardboard boxes and various things towel wrapping things elsewhere but they'd never seen drug screen or out of that house


thank you for your arguments morning


it and being the into t that was actually generating the good will the into t to whom mr mallock or excuse me to whom the consumer would look for replacing that product


ms murphy also stated somewhere where mr siegel stated in his declaration that he was told that ms murphy said the agreement was secret and that's a reference and in terms of the


court did not have jurisdiction all right fine now why did you not fire you brief timely on that issue because there was a motion for reconsideration pending and i didn't feel or believe that the court


over the claim because a dismissal of the judgment had already been filed in the district court before the bankruptcy court got a hold of the case was any different from your ground for appeal


government mean for all we know we can assume that you took those deposits and you took them out of the country you converted them into dollars or into chinese or taiwanese currency you made loans so the to enter these where it


involved when i came to see me i would just add a paragraph fifty two as an example of the misrepresentation plaintiffs when shortly before the fall of saigon in through the saigon branch the defendant the chase manhattan bank


true then that is mere presence at the scene and that would not even amount to aiding and abetting but even if he had gotten out of the car and hit the victim that is not necessarily overwhelming evidence of guilt


you know you know why because carol williams who's deposition that she looked at when she looked at the very document which which the court's questions talks about my client could have easily sent she looked at it and she said that was still a judgment


statute it's arguably distinguishable in that it was a impose criminal sanctions i don't think that's material here because what the court said about those sanctions is that sanctions or relief could be still be had against persons who


mind was getting your data not your price but that it neutrally set price they didn't get the get it under the law as it stood in judge matches mine of the legislature gave it to him isn't that completely clear what was going on here what the motives were


created outside the record of the record in the district court doesn't include any evidentiary hearing already declarations with regard to the circumstances as i understand it it's just we've got a copy of the stipulation from that the


the jury that they were not to consider it and yet we do have testimony by hollinghurst that he he was aware of appeal code section one forty eight and it was an issue in the


bankruptcy what is your position with respect to when or if those fees will ever be compensated well first of all not only on in the car i was ready awarded in this case by the bankruptcy


before the grooming standards in essence judge high as it was was confronted with the alternative that mr wertz holder is suggesting in this case and they decided


with our agreements with countries around the world you will see under two forty one b that there are specific provisions and when a petitioner


irregular heartbeat and he says i don't think we should conduct this procedure it would be unsafe for the food for the patient and they say no it's ok let's do it he says well i refused to participate in this procedure he walks out of the room in


so there was no there's certainly no indication of an intentional of intentional misconduct by the prosecutor and the united states supreme court or so that the opening statement is that it's a statement of what evidence is expected to be


absolutely in hindsight that might have been the best way to resolve this issue but there's no constitutional requirement that the police or private sector are no your honor i would i would disagree with you there is a statutory requirement if


age complaining about i believe harassment and discrimination and that he was named in that charge and received an but i don't believe there's evidence in the record about her richard knowing at that time that she was talking to the f


limited to involuntary service what we used to call i think all of us remember quite well some of the younger people though the draft now but there are quite a different i mean whether you're exempt from the draft or whether you're discharged


consolidated in the state court to be determined together why would i you know what would be the purpose of seeking to split them apart when we have a rule and in the context of robb's and in the context of


has a lien for the benefit of victims of crime on the assets at the time that they're in the plan and under the rights in case we know that the government can execute on those benefits as soon as they're paid out and so really the only


from the college he had to do it through the r c that was his sole internal review but the counter doesn't expressly say you can't go to court why is it if it is you know i do point to berkeley if i'm wrong but it doesn't


incidents and injuries and there were reasonable accommodations that could have and should have been made to take into account her disability plaintiff also brought claims for sex and race discrimination in addition to


based on that the court determined that that is not a major life function synthetic schools have to the job that she was working at appeal in the brief she suggested that she was quoted from working in any job that might have contact with children however i forgot to mention this


leaves or disability accommodations had been made by the defendants in other occasions because as this court knows one way that a plaintive proves a discrimination claim is to show substantially similar


decided just two weeks ago summarizes this rule of law and it's a rule of law that's not big or unfamiliar to anybody who practices in the circuit as you've identified that rule on a number of occasions and i think before your time


parties and if he has no contract you can't enforce a breach of contract claim against the bank the other argument your honor is that there's there's no breach here even if mr katyal couldn't force these contracts he still loses because there's no each of the agreements


seems to me we know and there's no contest that jasmine smith is in fact another tenant in the building and is in a position to make these kinds of statements even though they might be hearsay i'm not certain what we know about


she believed that those clinical findings would support a four hour stricture and those were tenderness in the spine and numbness and weakness in the legs interestingly on page six twenty two of the record origination


may please the court balls are for the united states the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing defendant rice wants to seventy months imprisonment contrary to mr goodyears argument the district court was well aware


no officer testified the witness seen the back of the driver in the seat prior to the seizure i've read the i've i was president and i was present at the evidence or here and i read the transcript very closely and there was no testimony that was observed or to the


reaches so far beyond the pale that it's reasonable to infer from that circumstantial evidence of the egregiousness that he at least meant to gross recklessness standard under the bill case


failure of his duty to his client and his elderly clients suffered terribly as a consequence i


supported fear of losing the case so he wanted to dirty up mr curtis that when he put it in for he claims it was for intent but all it was to do was to say this guy isn't so clean i can tell you


it's important to note that there were no other illegal substances or weapons or anything of that sort that were contained within it mr cruz was labeled as a career offender which put him in that situation and i think


drug transportation he had a track record i'm sorry informant had a track record yes he had a track record he had a track record he had firsthand knowledge he he was subsequently corroborated prior to


exercised no diligence in order to rely on tolling i guess the trouble trouble with that is this is the complaint and they don't have a duty to plead around


age circumstances and education individuals can perform a wide range of activities even a competitive setting and still qualify for disability in this particular case the strains from its biggest problem being


gun there were no fingerprints recovered from the god but that is certainly a valid argument about the unobjective two portions of mr savages testimony but we know nothing


on like the cases relied on by the defendant the government did not present the false all to the full false ultimatum of having to find the officers as liars or corrupt well or anything to acquit came pretty close i mean that they drew the start line and said


description and as judge or even a pointed out is that heavily qualified it as it is is one element of it the other element is the employer's judgment well in this case we have in a judgment that's been


a competitor cannot interconnect with the incumbent so their customers can make calls to the incumbents come up customers and vice versa it would be extremely difficult for other companies to compete with the come with the incumbent because nobody wants to sign


interestingly enough miss cali was able to testify that because she had been addicted before and didn't want to be a again victim she had a keen sense of paying attention so that one witness would have been enough however the other witness michelle


good morning and may please the court jim johnston for one month in savings find the plaintiff in the delaware action council for the other point us in the southern district of new york new york actions are here today and if it failed to answer questions that you


what mr black was doing and so even without looking at the act adduction says some of which were filed this part of these trust returns what we had as a tax last of one of


and be facing a much higher guideline range so if anything he got a break with the two to one point one but i think it was a correct interpretation of the one point want to treated to treat intended last the exact same way as under to be one point one because here we


robert pressley on the witness stand it comes from a couple of things that i cited in brief that he included in his pro se pleadings as well as one of the doctors that butler's doctor marine riordan's comments that he believe


criminal history points including the convictions that resulted in qualifying


not live with the custodial parent when we were given that information we ruled him out we agree with that statement he was eligible other than for a brief ten day period


that the original complaint was deficient to plead coverage under the rehabilitation act we believe that by pleading that they receive federal funding we fall within the rehabilitation act the district court disagreed which is why we sought leave to amend the


days nothing changes whether he does it in two days for three days or four days it is a thirty day gap and if the case becomes moot prior to the opportunity that's given by the state for you to appeal better procedural right that individual cannot equip face under the


an agency of the state so it wasn't as it was not a statewide election and so the state board of elections was not involved the board of election commissioners for the city of chicago administered the municipal election and so that would be the true party in interest


ninety nine score is zero it was for people who were you were on probation and parole and were in only the first year of their probation and parole mr


and goes out of his wheelchair and breaks his leg or two whether he bought some self he's a paraplegic out of the chair and breaks his own like in an effort to get monetary gain that's clearly the issue that's the way it broke down


understand what she's told my predecessor but then when it comes up to officer ben benedict they go directly back to it directly back to it after the judge says i can't be any more clear no result comes


risk of unfair prejudice here was not existant because the evidence only came in in the form of the officer's testimony about mr davies own words during the camp time in question well that that's different but i don't know that at a


deposition and the defendant produced a large volume of documents under rule twenty six the national disclosures so we went through a large volume of documents in order to take a look


unusual case but doesn't stand for this broader proposition that says in essence we're going to forget about hearsay rules when the defense is offering the evidence and and there's


troops at this point wants you to be contesting his that's correct conviction sentence right so there's come some time after the penalty phase and the present day where he changes his mind that's great and i think that


that would lead to chaos within the prison system there's no incentive at that point if that's a reasonable response there's no incentive to investigate threats to inmate safety and you literally would have a situation where the inmates are running the prison effectively as penal


skeel right now looking at thirty three of the transcript he told me that i'm not too big to believe quickly explained i'm trying everything i can to get out of the cell i don't want to get stabbed i'm in fear for my life did you


make up so when you're repeating a comment like that i think that the person who receives the comment ought to interpret it in context and say well there might be something there because the comment is so unusual looking at this is physical stature it might make sense that it's credible


and they asked me do you have any smoking gun evidence i told them yes and i told them that this instruction had been given to conceal withhold this data and to actually are ready it's that where the fraud occurs because it's officers of the court deciding to conceal


i think that under those circumstances the this is an arm's length transaction and there's you're already at eighty eight percent of the value before one is governor is there though in light of the suit that's ongoing in front of judge conelly


government's evidence the only question in this case is what was the right thing to convict of when the jury believed the government savings that's cracked but the charge was conspiracy and that's chaos and what the jury whether the jury


to shy one mathis and william holmes to demonstrate the existence of the conspiracy with daniel mclean and to one howard


solace the court never made a finding that the opportunity to present his views was meaningful and this is the fundamental element of due process as this court recognized in his remained order citing matthews


else then of course and looking at whatever that something else may be this court you know is entitle to and should look at at all the surrounding circumstances and i think if you do that in this case that also kind of belies


because i don't want to have you feel you have to convict a person of murder just because he did something else like a manslaughter of some degree so here it is clear before trial based on a memorandum of understanding that counsel knew he was headed in the wrong direction and he


that the purge the change was not broken the government doesn't really challenge that they say well the the arrest was legal therefore poisonous tree doesn't apply but they don't go into whether or not they take the taint under one stein


draw the well i tried that i guess for a couple of reasons number one distributes conduct on the plane was really fairly similar to the type of conduct that these kinds of defendants get in


two evaluations cut that it's very positive favor of your client but both of them clearly pointed out that the client had these serious meth methamphetamine addiction issues and where usually what happens is


we're left with a potential due process violation and so while there is a discretion there we have to have some ability to look look back and say was it handled properly i don't know what we do with


parole date in hand and of course we know if that constitutional violation had been remedied at any time he would have been released in two thousand and one because that's the parole


if i could focus the court not on a challenge to us pursue the civic action of of the state parole authority you know there it's multi headed it's the governor it's the board they're acting at different times but focused on the


me on this i think we do a lot of cases and i could be misremembering the facts or mixing up your case with another i thought what happened was counsel didn't consult an expert he got a report from a psychologist


defense which focuses in and says because of a mental defect or mental disorder this person was not able did not actually form the intent to kill also could choose to focus


like to dispose of a couple of issues first i trust that the court has received my twenty eight day letter that i submitted about a month ago i believe that the court's decision in united states versus


concerns if it were construed to apply to police those that encounters this defining wearing versus state and barrow's versus state if the ordinance applied to situations where the police have no objective justification for seizing the person to define quality of


second two thousand and three


of those factors and i think that this court discretion this court can still look and say ok district court your findings are ok we disagree and now you've already heard our position is that this was not exceptional remorse unreasonable


prejudice on those facts he got this offer of an indicated sentence and if you wanted it he was free to take it now this this man had seven prior felony convictions two prior prison


good morning i name is christopher rule and i represent german virally the fundamental problem here is that the district court did not consider the type of circumstantial evidence that


how about combining it with another event in the trial in this case the trial court excluded evidence the defense wanted to put on about the probable impact of bipolar


it was brought into the kitchen he remembers his dad clearing the weapon in the make sure that it wasn't loaded and then he said he didn't really see it anymore he was asked well you know was this did your father keep it and he basically said no he didn't have any


instruction although slightly different in its wording had the same effect that is to say from the proof of the other effects it was sufficient with means clear or similar language says


the argument that we're hearing today is the first time that this argument has been presented to any court this this is not this is not the argument presented to the california courts and it's not the argument presented in the district court it's not even the argument


the the problem with that argument is that it doesn't include what all of what is charging that he is charged with using in executing him to five to get the property by telling them to put their property into the trust so he could gain


time during which there was no case law that determined how the statute applied to people whose convictions became final morning sex and we're also talking about a petitioner who didn't even realize that there was a statue of limitations until august of two thousand and


to meet the pendent a forensic psychologist who does the evaluation for the purpose of the fending the crime that has been committed the doctor is well paid the doctor knows what we want him to say he usually


was some trace of the cherry on some of those things and there was no trace material found on the five thousand milliliter triple that flask so the expert did a number of different calculations you did a calculation based on simply how


the he was the only just made in the rotunda facing five corrections officers and that he had taken no aggressive steps to provoke the officers and most he had told the officers that what they had done in an incident that had already


fact as the bureau of prisons to pick here is that i mean we know that this guy was distributing material for the national life since we've got a district judge who sits in the eastern district of washington which is a known heathen for these sorts of groups that


supposed to say oh do you want to talk to me or not if you do you know you know then you know you have to waive your right to counsel are you willing to do that yes or no here's the form sign it and we'll start talking otherwise use them to booking if you want them


seems odd but that but that's the difference it would have been a two level difference based on two to one whatever it is so but again i think


judge i believe i certainly should have


something else there is something in addition mr graves could have done and that's not unusual for criminal type proceedings we can't always get our client for you everybody's like everything he's claiming and somebody put this in the firm which we've only


was not given immunity for any crimes of violence and in fact this prosecuted convicted and sentenced before judge mosman in may of last year for intimidating a witness so in terms of the skewed evidentiary


two questions they and dykeman does use the word in china and it also uses the word sexual and of course the there's no statutory problem here that's plain but the question is is there are not does are those words in the


that generally malignant reckless situation toward the lives of others ok just because he went beyond the fact and even developed a premeditation and part of the killing of frank perkins does not negate the fact that under


you have to go into the motion to reconsider to pull it all out because it wasn't before judge patel but the other evidence i just mentioned mention when it comes to what's important in these licenses how you're going to split up the money you can split up the money a million ways different people can


negotiate for a different price per download and so on lo and behold they all got the same deal take fifty percent of the net revenue the docked if the well after deducting expenses and then divide up that's fifty


unfortunately on the first leg of this journey not on the back end but let's try it on the back and let's at least give it a shot you know let's talk to the probation department work with them a little more i certainly would do that and work with i do that as we might do that


previous occasion had said i'll shoot him i won't fight him he won't let in i won't even let him get near me there was a situation where the where the defendant


at the circus and that's i guess my point is in making a determination about reliability look at the fact that he is you know


whatever it is in your budget and you can withdraw directly from the federal government for that money instead of the deal we advance in the funds ahead of time or paying after the fact i actually think the government would have a stronger case if this were after the fact because after


audit powers is seen through by the fact that the government learned of the false time comes through finding out that they were to tell structure allows for false time hard department of energy's audit structure is enhanced because they've learned more


here and that is the issue of missing lose elysees whether or not there one person else nice whether or not they should be viewed as collective entities which is what the trial court found versus sole proprietorships


dollars oh well she didn't end up going through customs which was as i understand it you mean you were really really going into things i don't know anything about it never


in this truck drove backwards all of that is completely consistent with a recording session and completely inconsistent with the theory that they offer that convicted john tennis in a trial which didn't involve the seven eleven didn't involve back or driving down the street


the logic of your argument which is not say that i'm persuaded by it i'm just not sure it really leads us anywhere suppose the only i've it wasn't the case that the only option was was life imprisonment suppose there was an option for fifty years


responds no shit and you know what that would have been if they charged you with that that would have been so easy to prove because i would have gone have been there in fact that that thing showed up at her house when she was in jail then shawn