p m the circular affirmatively stated there was fifty million dollars in capital surplus gold i mean it says that and then where they say and as well as the p p m saying that mr gary schneider miller told mr ryan reilly that and he


we believe there are at least three separate reasons you've answered my question thank you very much i see my time as a thank


and what time of day was it it's made it's like one o'clock in the morning out there in the dark right there's a guy who has just had a gun right and they don't know where the gun is he may have it just


but it never went below or paid for but i think the issue in taylor was that in taylor the plaintiff actually sold her stock during that same period of time during which she claimed that this stock was or officially inflated


acceptable risk on a different paragraph they say nonetheless during the class period defendants continued to invest the plans assets in key corp stock and to direct and approve the ongoing automatic investment defendants breached their for the


the plaintiff only could go on first for purposes of pursuing these claims could only go on the alternative investment theory of damages which we don't need here and we don't know if it's in our complaint we don't need it


maybe maybe we say nothing and let you guys just do more discovery and then tee it up the way judge cleveland suggested would that work this is an alternative out of the asli you know you're the court of appeals you have to make make the final decision proper


everything else seems to be the same the same thing that you're saying you're correct your honor my argument my position is that that what is described in the complaint not only does not match the statute or any other part of the disorderly conduct statute i want to stop you right there


i would think that being argumentative disruptive and continually interrupted offices well attempting to conduct official business would be would be enough assuming it were the other offense i


unless their plan is to somehow disarm the officer in this case mr wenzel had just been driving down a highway a country highway in a high speed pursuit a time speeds up to ninety five miles an hour and i hope the


when a suspect doesn't not have any weapon to strike them of the baton to disable him he does not have to go from a to z and pull out his weapon and shoot him three times and put one bullet in the side of this had to


you will find cases in this circuit that say here's the desk do you have an i q before age twenty two sometimes even inferred you have to have the test seventy or


a manifested during the developmental period the evidence demonstrates or support onset of impairment before age twenty two now it is read by some chords as that's what the low i


reasonable doubt and the woman when you talk about the legal standard she has to do more than that right she can't just find there's insufficient evidence to support she has to find that it was


sought to use sturgis on merchandise in connection with motorcycle rally goods where did they go they came to the sturgis chamber of commerce the source of authentic sturgis motorcycle rally goods they filed they


previous judge had had dictated it sure never complains about the content of the underlying hearing there was no allegations of any sort of defect in the underlying proceedings there's no allegations that the second i j


birth date so they found through their underwriting process with a pair of medical examination that the birthdate was in one nine hundred forty three date so if sixty one eight point one one is


it please the court my name is greg wallace in our brief represent janice smith in her claim for disability insurance benefits under the social security yakima smith is a sixty one year old woman who suffers from


occasions in which dr aram eva treated miss smith she noted that she had a persistent problem with swelling in her lower extremities it doesn't have to be true on july thirty one of twenty thirteen and don't


stigma flied of these vehicles and i'll be quite frank our petition alleges a stigma as well but what it also alleges is that alleges diminished value stigma and cost of repair all as potential alternative


that the plaintiff was cut off on discovery i would reiterate what the district court said in its summary judgment ruling which is the district court and the magistrate judge gave the plaintiffs three


years to put together a case on causation on general causation and to find an expert on general causation the eggs spert that they found a judge being near correct was one expert and it was a john doe pfizer


article probable cause standard i believe he was plainly incompetent every time the officer cervinia as well not shave the officers appear to me to have jumped in on the side of the ladies that wanted the keys


believing that a crime had occurred at that particular time yes that is what i'm arguing about on the excessive force to change the subject a little bit what supports the district court's conclusion that mr


madison kelsey according to cosies version of the events she was standing to the west and slightly south of the employee parking lot that is


ground with a bear hug why was that reasonable because an objective officer under his circle under the circumstances as a present of themselves he was trying to prevent a worse confrontation between her and the witnesses the record tells us about


woman who was dressed in swimwear with a t shirt over top and accompanied by three children when she was at the weimer pool on this evening in question she was not with her


car and so he had no further need of them to be there so when said he was told to arrest her because of her earlier improper conduct whatever with


this was this was newton al was made aware of this information he was made aware of the information from ms laurie williams who's the clinical director of the family planning services clinic who also testified that she recognized there had been people out there protesting almost on a daily


in the answer was no so i would respectfully submit as pointed out in our brief what we have here is more like the carpenter's fringe benefit purses mckenzie case which rejected the notion of this burden shifting to the employer when there is a


failure of proof and in that case the court said the problem arises because of assumptions of funds made an interpretation records mackenzie has come forth with evidence establishing that the authors assumptions were unfounded this left the funds


you only had contact with the fake mother so it's not like he's interacting with some with a minor mr young reserved a room with a hotel when he gets there he sort of hoots and hollers and cheers and there was


agreement ambiguous and again because it specifically said it's not an employment contract it is not in big u s but if the court were to find that it is in addition to the emails there are a couple of other pieces of parole evidence that would still compel the


and the administrative law judge judge ferguson pointed out she did have an impeccable work history and i was also noted by a magistrate who had the case first and they gave a recommended disposition to the federal court judge


the l j while he did not specifically state that dr johnson diagnosed incontinence he did make a finding that incontinence was not a impairment that was well


brief this is the myriad of four or four be presidents in this circuit in elsewhere but just just tell me one that's involved subsequent conduct for that was that was held to be proper for


majority of health centers forcing women to travel long distances preventing them from teen in care at small facilities in their local community communities etc and the court the district court here did the exact same thing it


the district court to make numerical estimates of the number of women affected that certainly should not be required for plaintiffs to show me or likelihood of success when we have whole women's health as such direct and binding guidance as to these particular restrictions


our panel has to follow our case i agree with it or not but i'm not sure it's really consistent or inconsistent with what the service done before in this particular scenario but that's my point well and then i had the case with the psychotic


comparable the tax court also failed to analyze the profit potential of the two agreements and the regulations say that to use the cut method you must have intangible proper in must have comparable property


that is the cooperating witness in this case there's no evidence of a threat there's no evidence of that was intended to dissuade marshall or when we learned their testimony it was simply a rebuttal of what happened that he then my client was being accused


an investigative team that started at approximately five am after they received a nine one one call from the victim who was hiding in a trash can a dumpster after she had just escaped


only have about a minute here some to try to touch quickly on a couple points that mr sherk made one point that struck out to me is that he cannot tell you how many of those e mails actually reached class members i think that's critical here they don't know and he said


back off narcotics why even if even if he is practices haven't changed and i suspect they have why did this why did this fella nonetheless need disfavored narcotics


physical injury and i think you made a good point about sprain your ankle you go play basketball you from your ankle you have pain the pain is not the injury yes the straining the ankle it's the tension tear whatever that is the physical injury and the


awaits the day yesterday and well anyone with the right class three firearms license could hold these is that are these all that's correct and i believe what happened is that the weapons will stay in the physical capacity and the


ordered all the way to a boot does it does it matter that maybe you could see a shoe and that's all the testimony is that really what you're saying is i just saw the foot being covered by something that may or may not have


ignored a complaint and he says no i can point to no instance in which the city got a complaint and did absolutely nothing about it and it's so the idea that roger clark said anything beyond the bare bones of what he thought he


united states department of agriculture federal crop insurance corporation and risk management agency the lower court properly applied heightened deference to the interpretation that issue an up held it however before i get to that i'd like


are to my recollection has never been an argument after the discovery was not in the direct appeal or the p c r both state either state opinions right directives and neither of those opinions thank you believe it's ever been


factual comparisons those comparisons include criminal history categories guideline analyses departure analyses offender facts and the fence facts for each and every case that was included in the memorandum so let me ask you


is very very consequential when you compare it to the other cases our folks paid to camp in this improved campground the feel was raised from ten dollars to sixteen dollars in the environmental assessment so that they


situation because the defendant wasn't mirandized but when he ended the interview saying you know what you guys think i should do maybe i should get a lawyer when he entered the interview in a conversation about invoking his rights this court found nowhere under to oil but even if the missouri court of appeals erred


it's talking about the courts virtually unflagging obligation to resolve these cases you know you also have to look at that context to it's not a situation that moses moses cone you know i don't while distinguish where they say you know


be here appearing before this court today mr lifton started out by telling the court that this is a policy issue and reminding the court that it was to


there's a contract enforceable contract there's no doubt about that about six months later fleet put up some of the money to make some of the down payment a few months after that the equipment was actually delivered the purchase price was a million yes how


was have any of you held or used offshore tax shelters foreign banks or securities accounts or any of you hold views your prejudices regarding persons who try to avoid taxes or tax laws which would interfere with your


religious or but that he had been excommunicated from his church there was discussion about the co defendants and their fraudulent activities prior to this and of course you can't exactly compare because in fact mr


is there a valid way of or of appeal clause here those of course will by the government are answer that in this case it's clear that the government repeated the contract at the sensing hearing did not comply with the terms of the contract did not fulfill their end their


offset so therefore that the plan actually cuts our way now our argument is ok if it doesn't cut our way if yes for some reason there is a three point zero five should have been


employees get the credit for that technically i believe the contributions would have been made by the union so i would dispute that but i believe the contributions made by the employer are simply part of the overall agreement and that the union makes the contributions so i would disagree


then the confrontation issue becomes very weak isn't that true i don't i don't agree with that respectfully when you have as a general proposition when you have someone objecting to


respondents have admitted or there's an admission that she did present the claims in her direct appeal and we would submit that in our objections to


that and i think it's two one two zero six point eight and penal code sections fourteen zero seven to fourteen thirteen that deal with disposing or transferring the property after a criminal


i'd like to focus on two aspects of the briefs in the ten minutes that i have with the court the first one as to whether or not they just fall rule that was employed to preclude the review of over twenty of mr collins as claims


rule is if the rule is not in place if the default rule doesn't apply then you haven't broken it and that wells and being come from ford versus georgia ford versus georgia was a case out of georgia where the georgia supreme court


district court he promised the court he would file his petition within sixty days of getting a record and instead of following through on his own promise which would have been sixty days after march of


that the internet aspect of this which is what makes it interesting that which is i now very little but it might correct that these pop up and only come up on the screens of people who have the dot


police and says i think i know who robbed the bank last week i think it was my sister's boyfriend and that's just informants may not be a hostile witness at all and they need to cross examine almost turns out that


down i can understand if with all think about this for a little while but if you have no other questions i stand by ninety five percent of our brief thank you can thank you for time are you have about


localities were localities certainly at the area where i live where most long term residents have guns and that you go in if a burglar is who goes into a place where there are people there


the issue of eleventh amendment immunity by the plaintiff or the defendant the issue did not come up in this in that court until the county in the court had made a motion for summary


through the whole timeline on the appeals but it will give you some time for me thank you and you can and if you also want at that point to focus on the second appeal you are welcome to do


not an affirmative defense there is no appropriate statue of limitations involved there and i'll finally let me say even if you went that far and took the county statue of limitations in important it into this contract there's a very big difference in


over fourteen months what do you do with the language and carnival cruise and since we do not address the question whether respondents hence efficient notice of the forum clause before entering a contract for passage respondents essentially have conceded that they had notice of the


acted just prior to that last shot a press of lee and unpredictably and daniels made the mistake of thinking he was going to stop when he went to the opposite end of the fence and he approached him and was walking up to him when


a matter of law we don't think that this constitutes a taking under the governmental interest portion but now let me you know this is one of these things where it kind of says you are what you are but now you're not


until after that and when the judge had suggested that she was not disposed to dismissed the state law claims against the university also when i look at the oral


honor and i would distinguish well and here's the difference to me in this case mccoy were the cases that have upheld twenty two fifty one a voice said that child pornography is interstate in nature and that there is a


and the jurisdictional basis that needed to be established by the government for this case ok thank you for your good thanks both sides for their argument the case just argued will be submitted for decision we'll see the last case on the calendar this morning which is the united states versus


that there was a substantive change in what occurred and as a result of that his judgment was not final the judgment was not final in this case until the amended judgment was entered in it so this petition was timely filed one other brief


if if the city of morgan hill takes the position anything but a bible college then there's a very serious first amendment problem there if they say nothing but a hospital then the first


and excessive matter because first of all they were necessary if you believe that the officer said she wasn't taking flight like she would be virtually non responded if you will she was asking questions according to her record of the officers she was saying what are you doing and what are you


very deferential standard and that can be contrast it with believe from the different sorts of decisions that this court should make and can make with respect to the to the rehabilitation act discrimination in


what the court does it tell me how they violated the government all right well we have testimony about a warrant first which i was just explaining and so we need to consider what goes into that i


it the court also later in the instructions at the end of the clay case instructed the jury not to consider any stricken testimony while so during its verdict and not to consider questions or argument by counsel as


that they would not allow the jury to seize on an isolated point not fact and use that the presumptively resolve the case and here is what's wrong with the fence instructions that they proposed


indictment when a release of money from pension funds accounts a transfer occurs there was no construct of the matter that language did not substantially change the indictment


you must assume that you will exercise your rights if we give them to you right i don't mean give them if we affirm that you have them i think that's right but i think it's important for us to focus on the fact that what we're looking at is whether the agreement is in force and that is all and i and you know what


o'brien he gave engaged in with respect to these individuals would not be a transgression that would happen again by suspending him suspending without pay for ten days and transferring him to a different facility let's get the


report makes clear that berkeley like every other city that adopted a living wage ordinance expects to share in the cost of doubling or tripling the minimum wage by receiving in this


same theory that we're relying on in terms of what the police did that was negligent in their conduct leading up to the shooting their failure to follow this general standard of care which even their own training recognized


organization and i think that was something that the court tried to give him an opportunity to do you have anything else you want to tell us i got your letter anything else you want to tell us and he said no mr domingo's denied the opportunity to clarify


mean really i mean the thing is is that we're down here now talking about you know and level discovery and but the thing is it's not in plain view if it's not immediately incriminating and you don't think it's relevant to the potential drug dealing there was


the usual language in these kinds of cases and i just i don't yet know where is the beef as walter mondale said a long time ago well again i agree if you take each individual facts and look at it separately it doesn't amount to much a whole bunch


more insureds i believe grandma wins because i believe it's been ambiguous one or more insurance i would agree is probably closer to any insured than the insured and there is plenty of case law we sell you to it that suggests even under those circumstances


my position was that the taxpayer has a right to determine that there was of the settlement and that's what that means you are right to look into whether all the steps were done properly and i should invest in depositions with conversations with mr vanier at least two or three or four


should or should not have or the part that is the offending part in here if the court determines that something about the fee structure in the contract needed to be severed it would be easily severable the california law arm and doris in other


other religions this is a classic example of permissible accommodation under a must and under texas monthly because the accommodation doesn't place burdens on any other people because it lifts the burden elderly and


to present his case in a reasonable manner without being subjected to harassment and page and a half questions and accusations which the courts have previously said


want i'm sorry but then his cat application he said that a member of this clan and then in his testimony before the immigration judge he said my family was killed because


dispute that that was the basis for the attack of the rape and the subsequent that the only issue was whether or not she died on the spot or whether the bus continued on its way in she


the question of whether there are grounds for withholding or removal and asylum and that's where this conviction of for a receipt of stolen property comes into play and why it's so prominent in the papers not because it was the basis for the judge's decision below that this individual


and what the record shows is that over the last few years especially since two thousand there have been a number of reported incidents of leaders of ethnic minority groups and there's one in particular in the record the leader of ethnic tajiks group who


a member of that than a family are well but we don't have any evidence that that is family members are being persecuted outside of of him right just him and the threats were also ok i'm going to i'm going to assume that the public the phone calls i want you to assume that the phone calls are


phone calls as well as threatening letter is tied with a black with a black ribbon three limbs former colleagues in this investigation were actually murdered there's no evidence that any harm he felt anyone in a similar situation to the


well her family has received explicit threats from the same person who brought her to hong kong that if she returns to he would return her to hong kong and to the brothel and that your second question goes to the issue


china yes or so it seems that we ought to focus on that because let's just assume he's credible because the i j d n if it's yester are will focus on that it's actually somewhat unclear from the ids opinion what


biharis adopted as if it wasn't fully explained then that would be a ground for reopening so i'm having a little trouble why understanding why if you don't want to impose the obligation


stiction that was the exceptional circumstance and if and hernandez rivera cited at least two district court cases where the exact same thing happened where the judges thought they were granting a proper extension and everyone believed


statute in there that there are but these are all materials that were available all that with available at the time that the case was presented to the i j a not only on the but yes most yes how do you respond to the government's argument that if they allow the procedure


going after your client on one of the protected grounds because of his own lives and because of political affiliation something like you know one of the protected categories then it doesn't matter whether or not police


drug trade no you are not an enemy what did he say absolutely nothing like that what happened was he never went to the police he was standing on the dock looking for work when the police were searching the ship and somebody somehow pointed him out and they found out that he


untimely so my client in this case was basically prohibited from having an appellate process in this case by the way he was going through all the steps with respect to the first council meet was


level but just cleaning houses and doing laundry for people she seems to expect that she could have done a better job trying is hard and the key here i believe is whether the government did restrict her ability to live her life in russia she was afraid


it seemed to come to this court would be a much more expeditious method number two we had no concern or maybe i should say we had concern but we did not challenge the decision of the commission on


with i believe it's with her husband and and there is the deportation hearing of course where where they unfortunately appeared late and therefore was held


talking about well i'm not sure what i might have said that was inconsistent that i think it actually this is an extraordinary event i mean it's not like you're talking about a sick child like a cough but the way this child who was a


essentially to do more than simply of eighteen and remain under events where you want us to be in that's the term a nation with express conclusions as to what we think the country conditions evidence shows


god bless you your honor the third circuit reached this very issue and agreed the eighth circuit agreed the board agreed am and the first in ten circuits recently denied asylum claims by chinese christian women in the media there is no pattern or practice of


like having that inconsistency is go to the heart of the claim and also i just added jurisdictional question we don't have a final order removal in this case and typically that is what gives us jurisdiction is it your


themselves in their prose a capacity to the board of immigration appeals president said as best as they could i think it's also very clear from the record that the summary affirm and of the of the immigration judge's decision completely left


brother didn't like the fact that she did all of these things she married outside of she didn't marry according to arranged marriage she married outside of her castes and then she converted to christianity and she just says oh and


of the judge did have an opportunity to address the merits the claim however she said i do not believe he has met his burden of proof it's possible that the reason he changed that conclusion was because he did not find the


should they have to corroborate her testimony with reliable documents she has not done that and generally in that case especially when her testimony is inconsistent is a paramount importance so we just we just had a case where the claim was that the i think was


hiding however mr ginn explained in his original i five eighty nine that he attempted to register his child because this was the only way that she would be able to receive government benefits like education and health care and as according to


states without inspection by concealing him in the dashboard in violation of law she assisted by wearing his shoes in order to protect her in order to throw the immigration officers off in detecting that there was a third person in the


the arguments thinking the records in this case establishes that discord should reverse the board of appeals and immigration judges decision a flock of credibility because in every instance


board's decision not to reopen the proceedings therefore cannot be deemed an error of fact or law and that is really the only issue before this court because he did not appeal the earlier denial of the motion to reopen nor did he appeal the earlier the


the government brings up and that's answering read that there's a presumption of regularity it affords government actions and that's true but it can be overcome by evidence to the contrary and what we've got here are


unfortunately i don't know the circumstances happening in egypt and whether that's common practice i really ask your question if this was nothing more than an isolated incident in the neighborhood


on account of political beliefs we know from the a lot adding in the thank you it didn't kill the boss and that me make it an extreme incident of witness tampering but that doesn't make it persecution on account of a political


that he's living safely that he's working that he has any sort of life whatsoever all we know from this record is that he's in india ms carr testifies or says and is well enough off to be able to


that they're trying and met that it's sporadically successful you're out of the the evidence on the record here that supports the government's conclusions actually petitioners own testimony fisher says he didn't go to the


there when the police were fighting with the p s c reporters the police were trying to break down this road block and the police cracked actively engaged and in breaking up this this event that was going on so to say that the government is


the fact that he was spending time in russia for what what what time has been russia sort of the side of the point isn't it isn't it isn't your honor and i think it goes to the heart of heart of the claim because if he's claiming that he was an arm in armenia at a


it's unreasonable to expect a twenty year old who has lived at home who is scared to death to go in and answer questions as if she's prepared for foreigners battle she didn't come here


best made of that at one time he had thirty credit cards or more


because we don't have any contested in the criminal proceeding i don't think so and doesn't the plea agreement say that he used different names different dates of births non existent employer information and different parents names in fraudulent lee


looking at the factual findings those factual findings have to be applied to the statute section two twelve and also at two thirty seven and that's where you have your questionable in finally the government now seeks to provide the announcer the rationale for the board's decision


or i believe so because the finding is that he abandoned before he came to the united states but it wouldn't make sense for an immigration judge to address that issue before it


entitled to any protection whatsoever under that statutory provision that is the position they took in the proceeding below and that has been phylicia of statute that we come here to get rectified we believe that monofilm made this


government agency to get out of this deal and doesn't allow an electric utility to be able to win agency at the end of the spiel but as for whether it should get out of its deal and at first says well you can't look at just and reasonable


occurred we don't have to prove that it was it was likely that discretionary relief would have been granted is that the argument you made in your brief


required to prove causation in a medical case of this sort but again you're on to the kid you're on his statements at the end of this sort remember the court below and the defendants have said that the question


and that is kennedy testified that you're always brought the drugs to her house that's what she said that baker was wearing a g p s monitor throughout the


no position will be they don't they don't allege that they were told it was a no lose proposition and no rational person could think dealing as a principal with a financial institution that it would be no lose


maybe that's not a very nice thing to do there may be a claim to that effect that was not the subject of the case but there may be a claim to that effect i would wonder if it's barba the statute of limitations or a stop at this point given


a substantial step to try and get a list of vs exhibition of that boy's genitals there's there's just no other way are that the government if and if the court were to draw every inference in favor of the government


understand i understand your position but the reality is that is a particular rule of evidence that allows propensity to come in so and it's clearly relevant to


a sentence of thirty years is reasonable substantively reasonable this is a child predator who had been going on for quite a few years undetected and who had ruined the lives of many young boys and i take it you don't know the status of the


dismiss all of the claims and assess these kinds of sanctions plus the seventy five punitive sanction i think is not defensible by this record and the two numbers were not exactly the same right they were there were some things that were added in and other things that were subtracted that were roughly the same


that is so he will simply go back and make that deal but i understand you are but with respect that argument was made the good your argument was made by the lower court by this law firm we cited it in our twenty ha later in the twenty chasing


fees and vet you must give back and we'll figure out what that is whether it's a whole or not now under a good year or whatever and maybe you already did that but that and


evidence in the record to suggest that the amount of the increased rent from the rent stabilization would approach the total damages suffered by virginia properties as a result of the collapse of the town the simply no evidence of the record it's pure speculation and it's


wrong you are correct and i would agree with that but i was saying something in addition to that which is that none of the lawyers are testifying that they actually have direct personal knowledge of what lies told by the i


think it was wrongly decided no no no no no no i'll tell you what i think if we go back and we look at the age i just need to check every conveyance by insolvent and i'm looking at two seventy three and it says if it's made without a


money while working well met while managing the properties we even paid the overhead of g f i management employees who actually provided services there's never been an effort to recover that money this is pure six percent greevy


privity on this record or are you just taking the view way oh the government only gets to litigate this question once will matter who the parties are i would remind the court that if we got lost in the sixth circuit we would have


require that involves looking at all these factors and deciding what number should be the valuation of the stock and that process would be an expensive litigious process and here i think it's very obvious that the stock as long as it's held by the


ability to take substantial economic harm into account if it's one victim it's a two level enhanced but i think it's five or more victims it's a four level and has been so whatever it was we presume this court must presume talking about an accounting well this


typical that we the law enforcement first determines who would be on the street sellers are and then work their way up the organization that's not atypical and i'm sure in the scripts experience and so that here they are looking right


was in a totally different context talking about proteins motion to reconsider the judgment and this was a very thorough careful judgement very detailed opinions and


perform sedentary work in fact he did not have the residual functional capacity of the r f c to perform any work you could you just identify what is the evidence you are relying on where the doctor says he couldn't


of december twenty third teen that he had work which he admitted was heavy construction work for twelve to fourteen hour days requiring him to lift over one hundred pounds in april of two thousand and fourteen for he said two and a half months there is some conflicting evidence in


because i think he's still acting at the direction of the prosecutor while any advocacy function and that would cover all actions taken under that let me ask you a hypothetical suppose the prosecutor said look i just got a phone call


oh well this is material that no one could retain after thirty two years and you're saying now they have to disprove your assertion and i'm not sure i understand that well i


breach and that's and i don't agree that it was a malicious breach and that's in the school board had a statutory authority to issue reports the school board had the medical records through legitimate channels and gained access to those medical records through an


of the analysis and it was does the constitution protects maxence right to maintain the confidentiality of fibromyalgia that was the threshold issue that was given it was limited to that disease it was limited to the examination of the condition to


believe so i believe it was a request actually what they did was they actually disclosed information about this person's condition and it was politically motivated so in our case there was access there was no


disclosed doesn't it i mean if it's if it's in the political context it could be very different from another context if it's a celebrity it could be something it could be you know for all sorts of different


of the second amended complaint which we must as well as the pleadings do incorporation we have a solid claim for malicious prosecution violates the fourth amendment is a traditional


something subtracted in it came out it came out too long but i still think it's clear enough to understand it's it's certainly not something that you'd want to repeat again but it's definitely clear enough and i think the district


two thousand and twelve and two thousand and thirteen no matter which path you took the government had shown in excess of five thousand dollars


prodi was not authorized to do that in the statute not only prohibits


get even closer to the press well the video reflects that there were dozens and dozens of police officers there the protesters could have been allowed to want to time to time and any possible formation


special needs doctrine had been applied second and there's no dispute that the the protection of the president is a special need and when you consider that the question then becomes what are the reasonable steps that the police can


claim we agree with the court or we agree that purely objective considerations are at issue there but i wasn't when i was responding to judge carney's question it was just in response to the idea


found the constitutional laws of the united states there are lots of really lousy laws that judges regularly enforce whether they like it or not they have a choice they don't have to you have to be judged but this is all you win hands down this


there is a breakdown of which and i believe it's mr michel's declaration where he sets forth which loans coincide with which agreements i don't have that he believes there's a similar clause in each of i do believe i do


can any investor not recognize that he didn't receive he or she did not receive repayment of principal twelve months after the long was issued the appellant had to recognize that


still hypothetical he published one of these these manuals and the new york times reports what he published now mr stagg or donald trump or hillary


special findings and it is not inconsistent with the special findings because this court another courts have consistently found that drug quantities are not an element of the offense for drug conspiracy and that even drug type are not an element of the offense for a drug conspiracy


points the board is trying to say in its argument that it's to started to listen to this court with respect to change to mitigating circumstances it has not in its footnote seventeen the board expressly states that the board in which has been


consider the reporting recommendation he did do that i mean there's no prohibition in granting those extensions or as many as you think you need to come up with a careful consideration of the issues and particularly how it doesn't help with the big picture giving


mean frankly if i were the judge here i don't know that i would care whether thompson carried out this murder by himself or whether he with full premeditation planned with other people to have this witness killed and paid


it used to require the force necessary to overcome ernest resistance but the state legislature amended the statute in one thousand nine hundred and five or rather repealed and replaced it to eliminate that requirement i'm having difficulty seeing why the removal part of the


case where standard non competing non disclosure agreements became maritime in this particular case you have an f f a which has only maritime elements it's a it involves


but i would like this court as you ponder your decision in this to look at the citation in the brief to language by one of our state supreme court


i was in my early twenty's i tended to molest four year old girls do we need a better record on this because i think there's a real discrepancy between what you're saying and the evidence


from passing along troubling information that they hear information that might point to a crime i understand that there are mandatory reporters if they find out something about a juvenile or an elderly person but putting to one side the


were arguing by mr medina agreed to cooperate with the government both the federal government and the state government


that he was able to bring up to light was to to provide information about the t paul murder that occurred some time back in two thousand and twelve so when mr medina


manufacturers of those products in the compliance policy guy that they were permitted to use those terms but they didn't do that so this case is unlike the price case price versus philip morris where in that case the court said this is about the sale of


replacement surgery and two they'll g s r c assessment regarding the shoulder limitations is far less restrictive than that set out by dr smith himself it takes a very close reading the terminology but the ala j concludes he can


in might very well lost then because the defendant knew that he was likely to be impeached with his felony conviction it might very well have been because the defendant decided that he didn't have a good answer if government counsel cross examine him regarding his financial difficulties with a text message


certainly the district court had the authority to enter the order so i think based upon those two reasons and also the interest of judicial economy i think with coupled with mr boyle's arguments


eight that was something done by the district court the administrative committee relied on section six point nine three chew with has to which is the provision of the tax code section that deals with distributing the surviving


mr heller morning or honors may please the court in light of davis using a firearm to kidnap someone has never violated eighteen u s c section one hundred and twenty four c so the defendant's guilty pleas to that charge lacked a factual


pending a mostly district court enters a judgment of acquittal so this case is pending in the district court you're asking us to tell the district court to get on with the next step perhaps that maybe your


for personal possessions like ms avallone charges kellner claimed in hungary she had this is the case with all sorts of family treasures and right that's right there but there are many other kinds of damages that they're asserting to they're they're claiming they're


a claim until the six grounds which i did they disagree with because of my reading and you know judge chance reading essentially of what those washington supreme court cases say but quickly i know i have thirty seconds before even looking at this


that is it is waffle for my client and the columbia college chicago to negotiate over the scope of the unit has expressed in their contractual recognition clause just as it is lawful for them to negotiate over other things such as wages such as benefits


sixteen ninety two she gave you to send a letter and it says we've got important information for you about this debt come pick it up at our office that would not comply with sixty no nor if it's come pick it


honor that that as as you pointed out our as judge hamilton pointed out these cases are very highly context dependent and a reaction to a claim of harm such as laughing smirking you know the flippin i can do whatever i


the plaintiff mushy all that country view a question some are provided an echoing to her and this first part of the exception was discussed in the barrett case and the facts are similar to this case there was an accident and it occurred during a riding lesson and


provided or supplied the plaintiff or force in fact paragraph nine of the plaintiff's complaint states quote the plaintiff provided her own accord to be used in a private lesson and so you know the question


before the judge and both the second and the eleventh circuit consistent with the supreme court and dec said there that is not a constitutional right to be unshackled before a district judge well we have the dictum


argued here today a letter to the defendant in april of two thousand and thirteen shortly after the settlement room was reached suggesting that there be mutual cooperation in approaching the insurance companies to provide information that mr siegel why did


offer is contingent on is satisfactory is the negotiation an execution of a definitive agreement except it will purchase or in accordance with the section of this offer in total definitive agreement correct return of that paragraph and we


time so it's not that difficult to figure out on those forty days she didn't leave california she lived there the sky west chose her domicile they chose her base that's where they put her they could have put her in illinois they didn't


to take it to the stash house tours was asked specifically why was a maria miranda met you at the stash house or something to that effect and he specifically said and during cross examination because she was a customer and we don't let


followed by numerous other courts and such forth in the briefing basically said that if it's not in the language of the c a far but only in the preamble it's not binding not only is it


interpretive because if you look at the preamble to both the proposed regulation and the final regulation the core clearly explained that it removed the definition so in the final regulation it explained that it removes the


do treatments at the illinois bone and joint institute what it is after whether she's right i mean i guess she has this allegation about a car that she can't be financed so the only evidence in the wrapper i wouldn't call it evidence because


regulatory argument that all the songs due to a particular creditor should be aggregated in the bottom line report the question is whether that is required by the word character of what what's


of physically and mentally fixing things handling tasks around the house but the record shows that he lacks insight into the severity or nature of his


disability and his work at the mill i believe that the record said that it closed i don't think he stopped that job because of his disability but the construction work certainly when he tried to return to that and he found that he couldn't perform that work


safety concerns i'm occasionally climbing ramps and stairs never climbing ladders and scaffolds no exposure to open a sheen or you know driving no moving mechanical parts all of which were limitations that dr crustacea


because of psychological issues not because of a seizure issues but because of the cognitive issues that he had he couldn't deal with the supervisors he couldn't deal with coworkers he couldn't deal with the stress and the vocational expert testified that issues with dealing with


court finds that the facts are indisputable is such that they support qualified immunity and if the district judge is correct then i would agree in that case qualified immunity applies and the case is over but to me the


brings to the fore the conflict between the sophisticated user doctrine and the federal scheme of warning provided by osha under c


missouri so we have a a factual issue about whether they did warm weather con agra was adequately warned but it was absolutely clear that con agra gave assurances to their employees that they were following all of the directions


perfectly reasonable acceptable approach and that was what was recommended by dr lucky so taking his recommendation tastemaker improved the ventilation throughout its plant it isolated acid out of hired into its


not the case you ordinarily of a flavor company its entire business is the formulas for its flavors and there are no m s d s's anywhere where a manufacturer put list every on


so that determination schools make has to be one of the services we provide what is our staffing and how much extra give is there right now in that same thing they do in their year new year by year classes but this is this is a little more complicated because you


was swelling so badly and they said no linda jo gets to do that she asked if she could answer the phones no linda you can't do that can i be trying to drive the forklift no linda you can't do that can i use the downstairs


explanation another explanation as to why it's so important that this testimony in the manner in which it was a list of that we just think that it was a dial up is fair trial and six and run it and we request that this


indictment survive because surely he can't get anything better than his own reading of the rules and i'm not sure that that using the rules as a basis of liability is the same thing is using the rules as


one bomb number two you know they number three correct and i and i think that that is that edition in two thousand has pushed aside the different underlined conduct standard that this court used in


were willing to give additional compensation to the class just in order to end it and yet here we are again so you're correct could you help me with the man there what was your assessment of what


attorney's fees both sides left it silence and did not address it that's what the court found a page nine and the consequence of that as a matter of law is that the background legal rule


should have been referred or sanctioned for the instagram post in the first place that's the same with the delay of internship she continues to challenge that she should never have been referred or sanctioned for the instagram posting and if she's never going to hurt or sanctioned she wouldn't


said twice is with respect to discipline based on an academic matter the court yesterday turman as to what the decision was made in an arbitrary capricious


good afternoon we have please the court my name is jim a night all right appear only half of mr anthony thomas your honour's if i may i would like to talk about matthews matthew morse


all right well call the next case of the afternoon numbers seventeen to those six four zero twenty two hundred west alabama versus western world insurance company and here from mr


behalf of its owner landlord or less so the landlord or lesser i think puts it in that context


that they they are from those allegations that they are claiming breach of contract whether it was an forcible contract under the statute of frauds may be a different thing but they're pretty that i was toying with them


the instructions substantially followed this court's opinion in order to use an a district court of course is not required to submit and correct instruction are one that's already been in the charge and here there's absolutely no


issue up there so these men go up there to address that very potentially dangerous situation but manson doesn't tell them the simplest thing are around is hey we cut holes


evaluated but the problem that occurred on the line that he was supervising seemed to me to be the straw that broke the camel's back and so that could you address that absolutely your honor


audit fit in that your friend on the other side was talking about it sounds like it is there some call the check by some other department as these forklifts come off no your honor we would suggest that it was the ups


contained in the probate courts order full faith and credit requires a federal court to give the probate court order the same of the fact that it would have been a texas court and under texas a state's


i mean i understand the statutory construction argument but the word consent is not actually in there isn't no your honor ok and if the u s supreme court has required that it be the state's construction of its statute then don't we need


why don't we have to get to the question of whether pennsylvania fire survives international shoe i think it comes back to the fourteenth amendment and i think it comes back to what the supreme court or the fourteenth amendment existed in it at the time of pennsylvania fire it's an old case but not that all


because it's only two pages long it's in the record it eighteen thousand and thirty two and thirty three and it lists preconditions to closing the preconditions to closing are the same uncertainties that judge engle heart relied on stone pete made it


by high paid consultants on the permit in process and there is testimony in the record that establishes they believe there was going to be no problem with the permit and with respect to the customers there's a lot of evidence in that record on the fact


well if you take a look at the original notices of appeal that were filed in connection with this matter there were probably thousands of deemed class representatives all of whom were bought off basically by


to amend i mean this procedural history i think we can agree is is pretty unique and to have the stay for as i don't understand this eight month delay after the c


ever adopted and it fails for four separate reasons the first one is a when you focused on junk as you can about them they don't satisfy or they run right in right directly into the the well established no sale rule the


ultimately it was hundreds of thousands of dollars to file these lawsuits which we did on behalf of these clients i mean you understand why the court was concerned about making sure there were real people behind these given that there was a criminal prosecution


than forty eight days so judge barbier then as you noted judge all right give an extension of fourteen days that was you know obviously a lot of time and then not only that as you also noted judge all right he gave a show cause process right he gave a process where he said


don't have a cell phone so a lot of people have cell phones and it's their only possession so i don't i can't assume that simply because somebody is a fisherman that they don't have a cell phone or that they don't have access to modern technology


but i get into the details an overview of this case is that mr trawled was inside his home at three o'clock am when the police came to us home two police officers entered his


that this critical witness was in the when there were five or six families and nobody went looking for who this one was they were as you can see from reading the briefs are about five or six officers involved is the da who


connors someone with no experience as an inventor let alone in the fracking space someone who never saw her patent application before it was filed and does as dr dawson said at the hearing lighting designs for buildings nevertheless filed


runners antec did not sufficiently plead those those elements a plea to the contract that was not subject to the type of interference that's being alleged the terminations they pleaded no facts showing that allison willfully


that is simply interest or at least the economic equivalent of interest and that's what the make whole amount provides i mean part of the reason there's this whole double counting issue with the post petition interest is because they may call them out in the post petition interest are


did not put up security so that these issues could be resolved what would be in a normal course of litigation and again we don't know the reasons


order that the charter of this vessel the one who purchased the bunkers the one who contracted with world fuels sent two payments to world fuels and followed within hours i think by email saying these payments


court if we're going to talk about equity in it for them the vessel at that point was losing charter hire it was it was placed off higher by its charters it was incurring additional expenses because it was sitting in port when it was ready in all respects


b case but in addition to the sparge case i don't mention where the eastern district found that there were multiple accidents or occurrences even though the collisions occurred almost simultaneously there's another says you can point to in that


important to look at the context there was also cited in some of the briefing i think ours maybe is theirs called random man two thousand one opinion from this court that was an employee dishonesty policy and


january or eight why was me still there only eighteen if we got thirty days pay was he was he was he removed from his office was he a scored out of the building on the


was going to conform to our court remain am and mandate i'm not sure what happened here but it seems that this turned more into a new action


to all the material but i do you know i didn't step in i didn't understand what was going on so this is just not a situation of contempt circuit from one judge


so i mean is that is that important for your case or for the government's case is there's no willfully there when the government if it wanted to prosecute under a one a it has to show willful refusal to depart under a one c it would have to should take


physically resistant that that person failed to depart in say he struggled he thought he took action to keep from getting on the airplane practical question just as you wouldn't have this problem if you weren't dealing with private airfare


while four years from the time sentencing so in terms of cost there was a much cheaper way to do it but that doesn't resolve the questions before the court i just heard opposing counsel refer to takes any other action as a parent article phrase i think that's the


to mean only transportation workers saying we must look to the common trait of the words that preceded it in terms of levity yes i do make that argument i think that the struggle we're having here to discern exactly what the meaning is means that


please the court russell post appearing on behalf of the apple the adult and logistics i want to begin this morning with the standard of review because the standard of review really forecloses virtually every argument that you have heard


situation we have a situation where universal actively objected to the question that we tendered to secure precisely this damage bonding and the district court sustained universal's position did not ask the question with


pay the debt so the fry mare case is the one that decided by both sides and the very premise of that decision is just not met here because based on the contract between universal and those carriers


initial form is not exactly the same as in the final contract the second and third parts are the same so the centrally there was a bid package consisting of the first three parts and then the u e c quote was the


not stand in the shoes they have no shoes that's what it's about so if low tech were here arguing with chevron about some threshold arbitration arbiter ability issue in the opinion and maybe this court


the principal forms the belief that it would be appropriate for the nurse to take take on the backup diaper changing assignment as you pointed out judge clear that there is evidence in the record that the father had requested that men not change these diaper


attempted to obtain a more expansive definition of adverse employment action by act relying on retaliation case law as the court knows the standard for tally ation cases is different and it is in fact a lower standard it does not require an ultimate action


typo of i didn't investigate the guy's salary but he is in fact making eighty thousand there's zero proximate cause there because my failure to investigate cause not that he actually had the money turned out to be true he told the truth well edge


the they will meet in the shape cost but they only need to be shaped asked if they're entitled to put zero dollars into the formula and that's what we dispute is appropriate here we think a business that isn't even trying to earn a revenue is that


have kennedy on the other hand saying well i have a different understanding so i think though the burden of this point and summary judgment is him to show that that the reason that mr kennedy gave was not mr kennedy's real reason that mr kennedy was using that reason


language most favorably to the planet if there is an ambiguity that is correct under the novo review but in this case the district court said that let's look at first of all this doesn't define in terms of level intoxication


purposes do you believe that there is official authority in the ninth circuit that indicates that the district court has to rely on the commonality issue based on the pleadings as opposed to the merits in making this determination


expedited hearing and just a few live witnesses and we feel that that was perhaps done in an effort to punish the district for not accepting all the demands that were being made from the students that


cases yes ok those cases involve a policy that would do the same as this one the case is the death penalty cases i can't answer that you know i don't i don't know but


court erred when it did not grant our at a minimum give us our jury instruction because on the face of the statute you'd never know that incapacitation was the law the language of the statute does not include that and that's why i oppose art gave the model jury instructions


he was she was sent away by mr fine and counsel and i was not in the conversation that i was privy to that conversation and i watched her leave that court room and all


and there's no support for it in the record to the contrary it's confirmed in the record by lisa hess that as of the fall of two thousand and ten as to mr x and specific medical condition the problem list did not show that


like to address the argument that mr atkins was not identified as the person that would have benefited from the acupuncture because in that discussion mr jack and says i don't know what i would use


he did with and when they sent him the invoice for the second one which was shortly after that what he did was pay the actual taxes he owed and didn't pay to but i'm guessing a different question right there is a procedure under state law to protest a tax bill


utilize largely its single repair factory that's in irvine california and used this provision in the district court's interpretation of it to basically perform these repairs on its own without making


most of its emphasis on which is seven hundred ninety two and showing you why the legislature thought it was being crystal clear and in that regard i will say judge watford if it wanted


net loss which was defined as being excess of both the applicable schedule underlying insurance and all other available coverage whether primary or excess that is


your honour's you picked up on a point that i think is interesting and that is that the language of the policy did change there was the two that the two thousand and


amended complaint right they don't have to prove that there wasn't independent access they just have to allege striking similarity and they have they've stated a claim of copying so they've they've alleged ownership and the striking similarity


these were copies for baden reproductions that is sufficient to establish substantial similarity i'm sorry the virtual identity of the designs so i don't think the


that i mean part of the reason it wasn't strictly procedural perhaps it was you filed it without asking permission and when you could have asked for permission you didn't ask for the permission suggesting you never you know you never meant this


and negative inference of cmdr showing that the the defendant's acted negligently and the district court looked at the proposed amendment on this motion to leave for leave to amend and and noted that even if they were allowed


the moment priority one got the money they never intended to send one penny of it to their us ok so forget about all of these other scenarios that you tried to spin out your brief about well the taxes weren't due for a few more days and maybe they were still debating whether they're going to send the money


section six thirty two claim and the negligence negligence per se claim to to satisfy the second prong of the anti slapp motion the plant this have to


in the miller case where people were trying to get into a doctor's office they're going into a home to film paramedics at work and those are those are potential invasion of privacy then you have the wilkins case which is a public restaurant you have the


claims your honor but it only relates to the two of them terminate the post terminations claims and there is a that there is another claim which really each to the unpaid wages claim and that unpaid wages claim


the only admissible evidence on this canvas bonus of seventy one hundred euro was the testimony of his nose officers this is robert and joseph rubino that monaghan


that's what i'd like for you to do and just take out the commissioner a minute and just tell me why you think they wouldn't have the first of all the motion it's the law says what did they do not what they would have had to do number one they


misleading was that the argument that every every claim that was submitted once the contract was approved with was entitled well you know to be included in the damage you were your honor the plaintiff challenge not that wasn't quite there


saying at the time of summary judgment and i don't think that's a big deal because at the time a summary judgment he's giving every evidence to the other side and he said there'd be no summary judgment so i don't think


has a small select easily known and easily identifiable base of customers does that answer your question you're on i would like to however state that i would i would like to address first of all the the question that


of the initial you're saying that the initial review for which no deposit of money was required is really not a review at all because it was a violation of state law right it doesn't exist that's that's what my argument is and i base that on the weiss case so


they're not challenging that they knew about the actual loss of itself what they're saying is they never really had notice of it there was no concern the notice was not the position the positions understand is that it wasn't a tender


importance of insurance shifting you know cost and whatnot i think is too important point i want to make on inis is really part of that whole idea i say this isn't part of that because the noticed last project rules important policy


good morning your honour's my name is david seeley and i represent the value of my school district in this case may please the court i'd like to add a couple of


i do they have to suffer prejudice ignore laws that those are the rules of the game those are the rules and then you come up with this tell me about this amendment you know this is this amendment that you pull out of a hat on the job


and page thirty four sarahs the amount payable depends upon the type of loss as shown below all benefits are subject to the limits below directing you below and it says percent of your


case about who was entitle to the benefits and so potentially brought the case in court to have that decided whether or not the employer was entitle to the benefits or the appellant here in the course of that percent was apparently resolve that issue has


arrested refuse a subpoena used of sanity's directed at the court and he was arrested right before the trial i am confused about the procedural posture of this case and whether that we had some very recent motion that


receptive if that's correct your honor that's why the issuance of the order to show cause i think was a signal that the state court acknowledged that this case had its legs yes your honor for yes


attribute motives and thoughts to the state courts and i don't know why we're precluded from doing that when they have a speaking or that your honor i can see the court is precluded from it but in this instance one can look at the


premiere hearing which jury knew which was four weeks after petitioner was arrested on july twenty first and then ten months after the shooting i trowe foreman yet again despite not wanting to be there despite


mindful of the fact that petitioner himself admitted yes felonies mindful of the fact that his mother of course would be biased and this is also an waveringly consistent when he was asked of


for his classification as a property specialist he wouldn't have been laid off if he remained as an engineering classification he would not have been laid off can you make that proof well not that


and then they haven't released it says we will leave the fact that they made any representations so that what happened and they and they put all stating that doesn't protect their insured we signed that release in the turns out and it


anything to the contrary from counsel or from the court present during the trial i think that's the most compelling i just find sort of disconnect it's one thing to be able to talk to your client you know where were you you know what they are you


for a district judge to look at something go to wikipedia and say while this expert report appears to say on its face that this these representations are false i don't think it's a good expert report because i have taken judicial


they're not the motivation itself the motivation was apparently and there's a myth one means in which they carried out the motivation right and then they arrested him and i don't even get the connection between that me arrest anyway i would


it said the claim of cruise when the player knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action not when the plane of suspects a legal wrong it


with respect to rebuttal i would like to hear you say whether or not you agree with mr harrington on the resolution of this case and if so then that will be the end


in advance for cost cutting purposes thank you miss call me just make sure that my colleagues don't have further questions for you or we'll give your rebuttal time but for their questions here before we hear from


to do with two d into e s l and the way that section nine b the budget neutrality provision plays into that one of the themes of our brief is that the secretary has to wait not just one


was standing and so they're there to have to be a reason to find that agency as standing and it sounds like what you're saying is there is a reason to find that they have standing because there's a category of claims via session claims that haven't been resolved yet on the merits if that's what we're


not pay their legal fees here we would still get to a judgment and the judgment would direct to the government how to pay that money this money that the government's going to be paid is not your mark or something else this is not interference with the government state u s


immunity and an arbitration clause which the court allowed this court allowed even despite the fact that the foreign sovereign had entered after the judgment as far as


that have recognized the doctrine of consular in on a review ability have not addressed treaty where the person was seeking a visa in the category that the treaty protections


section for the visa where they say they describe the person who is entitled to enter the united states under the treaty so entitlement is by definition a right


any case where in that situation where they hadn't gone through notice and comment but should have the things that they then have on their books has to be dismantled by


notice and comment rather than them saying oh gosh we thought it was a guy never mind we'd rather do this case by case so i just i know there's a long question but i guess and it's another way of asking what


explicit that existing refilm and procedures and protections would be retained did not say that we would change those in a way it's not ordinarily required the bay isn't ordinarily


nor the state court from which this action originated at jurisdiction to entertain this case nevertheless we're arguing over whether one thousand four hundred and forty seven c requires some sort of a different result to remand in the case back to the


that distinction because a geisha is a whole public meetings and the obligation to make records available are legal consequences that flow from being an advisory committee


could in that role conceive yourself as receiving advice and bring it back to the agency or you could conceive of yourself as merely serving as the d f l the person who's going to answer any questions that use advisors might


evidence in the record at the time and we presented an abundant evidence that in the ensuing fifteen years of both partisanship on the part of the c p p the fact that no one has little did as well as these two expert submissions


completely reforms it's leadership and it's paul so you know so in other words if you prevail there's no presidential debate this you know i disagree with that your honor there's no reason that presidential debates for example couldn't


you at the top of the a dent in that we're challenging it says the simple death sentence implementation procedures implement doesn't help you any implementation could implementation seems


the the three to the marshal who would then take them to those three states to supervise or execution there as long as the executions were carried out in accordance with the respective state protocol i think the


stay cool in the district court and invoke the the the latter stay close yes i believe it could and i think the government presumably will argue that it could regardless of the moratorium because the law does not provide for implementation of the


recalcitrant states that the reason i mention them is because they fall in line with a series of policy arguments of course the government has made it would be more efficient for the government to have a single protocol it would be a problem if the state were to


preclusion statute in the outpatient perspective payment system which refers to the development of a classification system under paragraph two including the establishment of other adjustments including a method under


united states why can't he just go go on with his life and not worry about some speculative future entanglement with our government while your honor a look at mr farrel history indicates not


future some some consequence that might be reasonably likely and many see at risk of being drafted or being subject to some tax that applies to citizens abroad


that says i became a asserts citizen in two thousand and four minute did i want to be a u s citizen anymore that is illogical that there is no way for the government to make sure that that is correct and it is illogical as applied to the facts of this case where he waited


fact that there might be responsive records located elsewhere is not dispositive under mobley the question is whether there was a response of records are likely to be duplicative of records that were already retrieved from the system that


reacting in real time i don't know how you could have standards that govern something like that you know and it's so subjective it's so more that and president trumped up for better or worse create that sort of atmosphere i tend to find it


then the consumer is more likely to talk to the doctor about that drug and so you can see you know if the consumer goes to the doctor about a high priced drug and said if you informs the doctor i want this drug doctor but if the t v ad says it cost many


congress passed a statute less as mr freeman is suggesting because then it would be a political question if congress ever tried to go to court to get the material so that these cannot possibly be that


basically say that pretty much any obligations of a senate confirmed official is non exclusive because the agency can read delegated and there's a presumption that they


publication but generally when somebody makes a complaint that it wasn't published that's for the question of whether it's final yet and whether or not they're injured by lack of notice and both of


that is not benefiting any private interest it is benefiting only an official prerogative of congress unlike a private party can't just ask for information because it's curious if you look at all of the


ordinarily evidence on the other hand we have the absence of evidence and then we have some supreme court discussions on cases that go in some point one direction something to point another direction even sometimes within the same opinion and so


classified the supreme court nevertheless that had the force disclosure of an intelligence source could have a devastating impact on intelligence agencies it said that even the risk that a court could order the


hearing by saying i have reviewed the orci declaration and i need your help i need further help by the way that is an instance where the government provided the help the linkage the judge needed to get over the hurdle the hump of the argument that where they were


said that measures to raise money and to appropriate money could only be done come only originate in the house the other members of that from the convention said that


which mr gray would inform the court it was important for the fifty four b issue that all of those tort claims are before the court so suppose the internet policy were a contract term would


pleadings they did argue that the supplements would be harmful to people in particular on the phone with gas and supplement they said that it would mask a vitamin b twelve


covered before these are these demonstrations were approved and in kentucky us into a sliver so it's not it's not just people who for the st time are are if i mean answering the question i


authorize states to exactly which is something about the consistency between tampa and snap and that that one of the courses that the state can have is if it's if it's cutting people for failure


want to provide coverage to eligible people because if they don't you know think what happens they just end up in the emergency room it's not it's much better for these people to have health insurance whether it be from medicaid or through the exchanges or employer


percent more than what they were the actual amount and the way this formula works it would result in more money having to be accorded for the allocation process than the trustee actually collected and so that's why i think congress didn't


general requirements that apply there for medical assistance and edina makes this pretty clear the st requirement is that it has to have federal matching funds or the whole point of it is that there is a medicaid coverage because the federal government has agreed that the services and care that that


the secretary to look at new innovation programs that do different ways of charging or delivering care to new types of populations that's the difference between under a state plan and under demonstration project so if you look through the regulations your


that there are demonstration project demonstration projects that expand the field of coverage beyond what the medicaid regulations is that you would otherwise allow for but then there are two different types of demonstration projects there's one


knowing default by the union we will not attend number two i understand this is reasoning by inference but the j forty eight the provision of the contract at the bottom of that page


use the exclusionary rule to do that i don't think that's correct at all i don't understand i mean we're not playing to any particular state code either in michigan or indiana for our supports in and basically


court plaza and yet a supreme court case where they said the sidewalks around the supreme court are our public forums i have an idea why don't you supplement the record with we do have pictures in the record yeah but


depreciation can be considered when determining actual cash value can't it it can be and what are saying is the broad evidence rule doesn't apply in this case because actual cash


words if i understand that correctly you're just relying on their say so they didn't have any evidence under the current president in this circuit and yet differential idiology is enough to prove


and months of relentless verbal and physical harassment threats and abuse she experienced because of her sex and sexual orientation now that it is four incidents she regularly reported to that's interesting your honor of the facility


guests because the landlord controls the premises and if one guest comes in and takes a swing at one of the tenants the landlord also has the ability to control that you would have you would have


good afternoon may please the court last by me half of the united states this court should have affirmed the defendant sentence and there was no procedural error the district court did exactly what it was supposed to do in


made which we believe has been taken out of context that the career under application is not a discretionary call for me that was in direct response to defense counsel saying be an abuse of discretion for the court to


gauge river gauge that feeds to my monitor i knew what the river level was and if i had no reason based on my own judgment based on my


during the day means of holding the toe including wires up lead to the shore to the trees on ballard's island about one one or one thirty that afternoon


the state of the statement was minimally prejudicial to the defendants because the statement was about the illinois department of corrections in general not about any of the individual defendants or even correctional officers specifically and the statement


was and then that became a dispute as we as after and that was already into the record then there was a dispute as to whether mr fryer could in the acknowledgement section of his report state that his report was sponsored by


the final disposition to account for any diversion of marital funds outside of the marital estate but as i put as the judge doesn't have to claw back the money from the marys all the judge needs to do is adjust


discovery or as defendants in the divorce action which he certainly could under the only code of civil procedure section four o two which governs respondents and discovery and four and five and four of six which covered third party defendants so the divorce court has full


e when an appeal is frivolous last week this court granted at least a motion asking the court to take judicial notice of a motion recently filed by mr dark in his divorce proceeding seeking to stage a trial in that proceeding pending the resolution of his federal


third implementation of the kosher kitchen program which involved moving nearly all jewish offenders receiving kosher meals to a facility with a kosher kitchen satisfy the turner alone standard


not much evidence of more than one concert over a period of at least two and a half years according to the ministry of law judge cullen went on dates but at page five sixty three it


so the defendants correctly point out that responding at superior does not apply here and that's not what we're trying to rely on our argument is that if you look at the order which cast was that signed which reinstated huber's


but whether this evidence of attempts to torture somebody can count towards proof that they were mean at risk of torture they way they would count towards their risk


may please the court jake schmidt on behalf united states of america with the court's permission i'd like to address some of the points that were just covered in counsel's argument first of all as to the timeframe of the scene there are basically two separate criminal


your honors we request that you reverse the district court and remand for a new trial for three main reasons first that the district court of used its discretion and denying mr walker appointment accounts second that it also abused its discretion in


left in protections for internal candidates seeking promotion or transfer but executed applicants that simply nowhere in the text and requires a lot of assumptions that are reading doesn't require to discuss some of the specifics


disparate impact is covered under that provision at all and that's obviously not at issue here but the point is that it's framed so differently that drawing a comparison between those two doesn't really make any sense and i think to


yes and you're on his i'm down to about a minute and you have additional questions i'll answer them otherwise i'd like to reserve the remaining time for rebuttal thank you


not see i just have about half a minute left i just want to make sure that the court recognizes this or this rule that mr avila says that the government's rule about vulnerable victims it's not my rules not our


place my answer in the context of the question i i think our position was that this entire interaction but for certain bilateral emails and then certainly internal e mails was predicated on multiple oral


area in the area of men where he was selling marijuana well there simply was no evidence that the landing of the gun to mr harris in this instance was related to drug trafficking it showed


legal drug conspiracy judge in urdu saying the evidence in this way i was relying on this court's decisions and hicks how a conspiracy operated is relevant to there being a


so this is a strict liability for the crime this is a variation depending on consequences correct it's a strict liability based on whatever consequences happen and again in birds the court


of opinions this is an element based question and so the elements of the indiana fans are that somebody knowingly or intentionally one too in a rude angry or insolent manner three obstructs the nose or mouth of another person


engaged in precisely the generic conduct that congress sought to criminalize but that's nonetheless the way the categorical approach plays out and there are a number of ways the state can seek to avoid these sorts of anomalies from causing problems the state can tie its schedules


will be detained in the meantime tai even know on the merits there is an on going case from the supreme court of the united states


step that gets them their money you know that's the point of keeping these billing systems and going to the insurance companies sure i would answered two reasons it's still a contract for the provision of software predominately again but


in that it could paint her as you know some person of poor character who is out to have sex with married men against their his wishes and things of that nature that are not pertinent to the central issue


application process let's say for a reservation agent if somebody had decided that he didn't have the necessary computer skills he might not have been offered the job in the end that's possible your honor but you know mr


moreover the only person she ever wrote up for billing problem was my client and this was not a system in which there were no standards as to when to write someone up as opposed to purposely counsel them my client was clearly targeted by


guarding the daughter standing is that her right to be reunited with her mother to have their family join together to manage their family relations as they wished here in the united states was violated by the inadmissibility funday


was entitled to rely on the defendant's admission which was made under oath and provided conclusive evidence of his participation in the scheme during that period and i would point out that not only did the storm of the clear agreement he


how far back does the charge the fence reach in this case mean what is our first evidence of it and under under your theory how far back can you reach with the


undertaken and that that state action is in violation of a federal statute correct here are why isn't this moot this isn't move your honor because


you but this new law seems to change quite significantly the regulatory regime in wisconsin your honor i don't again i would respectfully disagree that significantly change the the language authorized to do business is


another well i would i think the district court would do the same thing that i'm suggesting this court would do which would be just say the change in the law triggers restoration risk your burden to show us that you have an injury in fact so show the court that you can't just me


talking about is a specific building contractor law that says building contractors have to have an insurance policy from an insurer authorized to do business in the state that phrase when applied to insure has a very specific meaning it means and insure that's licensed


discretion yes your honor i think that there are a number of propensity free reasonings for introducing this evidence and of course cora forby prohibits the use of evidence for prohibited purpose that is propensity it was used at


of planning to do it you could say release the record decide the record is in fact silent on that i would i'd like to address specifically the government's continued reliance on the two cases chambers and siebold i discussed this in detail in the reply


district court was aware of that history when it decided this this issue and that may have all those no indication one way or the other may have influenced the court in whether or not it decided to sue a sponsor and to suggest amendment but in any case mr knotts


bent to reach a conviction that otherwise not appropriate at least on your principle you have other arguments but on the your principle issue it's a question of federal jurisdiction that's exactly right your honor and i believe that you are using the substantive reasonable most


during the trial testimony and then the very same assistant united states attorney who elicited that testimony stood up in the opening summation for the government and almost right out of the gate said she was fifteen he was thirty two and they then


and b how it was presented to this court on appeal that's the problem i've got under said i'll take that not to the side taking up too much of your time that's quite all right turning back to the two main issues in the case which were discussed


bobbie but there's no indication that as to first of all when those occurred in relation to this this this murder or killing and there's no indication that he had any knowledge that either of those individuals was


violence can be the basis for implicit prior surance as such that they've domestic violence act or believe they could act with impunity and this is one of the house yes so why was it necessary for them


organizations never using drug traffickers and that's just what they did to the courts and you could talk about those same kinds of conclusions when you make it directly relevant to the facts of the case right right which is what the courts


citation to the record in which she says that i do not agree with counsel that that the department raised the issue however it was the judge who took it upon himself in this case to ask my client to to make most of the questions


this is part and parcel of the problem on a summary and why it was erroneous for a judge coat tried to weigh all of this evidence and try to assess for herself its significance these are issues


ultimately the traffic citation in this case was written for crossing the fog line but if you if you look back to the earliest development of the facts here at the time that officer is sitting in the median he's watching this car approach he's seeing this frequent lane change that's the first


it is in light of rodrigo is this is a new issue because bridge regas certainly suggests that you can't go beyond the questions of license and registration then proof read surance thank you very much i think we have the arguments


do not belong in this litigation so we did that but for example you take progressive right and if your point please us are progressive callers


small animals but where there is no question rice has bad stuff there's no good purpose for it that's not what i'm here to argue what i'm here to argue is the term for use as a weapon


d the next case on the calendar is united states easy and


right that was am on the back that's correct your honor so detective campbell testified that when he looked into the rear of this hatchback vehicle he saw inside a bag a box that he recognized to be a long man named ignition which


lopez and mr lopez fails to clarify and in fact gives the wrong answer about what the fund provides why hasn't the fund reached that duty regardless of whether lopez counts himself as a fiduciary


disposes of the pension fund case because if the court ends up ordering reverses the vacated summary judgment escapes becomes moot in the fact if the the


removal proceedings you're treated differently because you're in it miserable so you're not in the united states versus removable inadmissible you're running up against the border and bouncing off of it removable they're trying to push you out of the country so that little distinction


to get permission to come back and that's not really what happens person goes on vacation and come back and stop at the border they get placed in removal proceedings just like mister they have to go for an immigration judge just like mr they have to submit a bunch of paperwork and documentation


states you know they are brought by the fraud section i believe that they were all i'm not positive but i believe they were all filed in the southern district of new york but all being prosecuted by main justice with no involvement from the southern district of new


with you that if there was not an honest answer given that's clearly a mail fraud the defense actually requested an instruction that seems to me to be entirely consistent with your theory


neither crank those federal defense nor any claims against which it was asserted was dismissed here within the meaning of twenty eight u s c thirteen sixty seven c three in number two diversity jurisdiction existed when this claims remain on the first issue your


ok what does that mean if you're going to hold this disclaimer means we go back to state court can the plaintiffs seek the same amount of damages from my client when they get back there now that they've disclaimed so i don't think it's harmless error i don't think it's form over substance for that reason


diverse we we noted our citizenship ranko citizenship we pointed out that the plaintiffs themselves had said it was the last defendant and that these other parties were also diverse so in the face of the


alleged in those documents did not violate the statute or a reasonable jury cannot conclude that they violated the statute the court would have been compelled to dismiss those charges and the court specifically didn't dismiss the charges they specifically upheld them they said this conduct if true violates


absence of any evidence from which a jury could conclude that let's just take phone terry resignation that dr long was faced with a choice and didn't have a choice and was compelled to resign but the wrongful acts of the hospital that a


his primary tormentor a straight african american woman suggested after following him around the store in the hopes of provoking him to fight with her that she should cook him a roast complier


did you get what are you getting on this what do you what do you hope to achieve with today's appeal your honor we believe eve that the court should know the case but the appeal on them with case well your honor the consumers have been overcharged this


notice is a violation they involve highly specific products actually so if the notice of violations says munch a goat cheese at it at a whole foods store at columbus circle that has no bearing on whether this


a systemic mislabeling of products and they described included in their rubric meats bakeries and and dairy products but they don't not identify what they are so what you're


any way on your honor i don't believe that she correctly states you did not explicitly make that argument but we did submit that the paperwork to the court that it was on that basis the phone charge


you not contending that the arbitrator reached his decision on the grounds of musical incompetence no he didn't your honor but he did consider the cab or says also true if in


addition and also i think show that it contributed to the arbitrator's making an erroneous decision the request for the fifteen thousand dollars when he refused when when when when he said when they wouldn't


he was weighing issues and you know he came to the conclusion that reinstatement would just be too difficult well we'll the difficult the


client was all together he was paid about nine hundred thousand dollars altogether four hundred sixty three thousand dollars that's in dispute was four hundred sixty two thousand dollars that's not in dispute so even if he has to give back for


respect to the standard that the district court was asked to apply the government took the position that a much lower sentence would be sufficient to satisfy the purposes of sentencing which is a representation of what the sentence actually should be yes


that it paid willingly knowingly and according to the custom and practice of the industry prior to this lawsuit i would just mention that it was mentioned in argument by


went one twelve to one thirteen it says i would like to explain to you the depth of the commitment this local union has to its


an old pension plan that local that the world airways had and moving into a new pension plan so they they had they don't have a contract yet and i'm not it's not clear from the record whether they were members it says in the car in their complaint that