about the credibility of the state prosecutor whether his decision was unreasonable it's clear the trial judge knew what he had to do and took that seriously in the one case where the prosecutor was making a demeanor based argument and the trial judge


rent for the period of time that they did first the plaintiff had not yet been able to provide the additional promised business to defend it to offset the significant increase in rent the second piece of evidence is that in august two thousand


payment of rent should be absolute unconditional and there's no hell or highwater provision in this agreement no matter how they try to bootstrap it into the other provisions as to the frustration of purpose and commercial impracticability the sole permitted


shirt that was part of the observation that wouldn't with the other factors include it or not that wouldn't be a hunch even though you could speculate as to other things it


consistency with the adjustment of a firearm provided the detective with a reasonable basis is suspect that the defendant was armed and there's testimony here am


reason mr wood got the benefit of the exercise of the court's discretion because the court sentenced him at the low end of the guideline range


supreme court said and you know you don't have to take my word for it when it looks at carlson it says you know even what this court might perceive as minute factual differences cannot circumvent the special factors inquiry and so all we're saying is that because


basis for alleging success or liability other than there in the same business and they've assumed the assets i mean our discussions in the case law about the possibility of assuming assets without assuming


and the last batch was was produced in july twenty second and the motion to dismiss dismissal order came out on august fifth that's where the evidence of the fact that they were in liquidation came out was in that last production just before the dismissal order came out that's


also where the evidence that charles rangel was a shareholder appeared in that last discovery that had been produced and my understanding from the trial attorney is that they were ready to proceed to compel further discovery but then the dismissal order


in the cerebral spinal fluid and on that basis we believe that the active ingredient does cross the blood brain barrier but we're very careful to your ads make that clear that they're that was not based on human studies this is from the ad this is a quote from the ad talking about dogs so it does say it does say


investigation starts in twelve mr frayne japans declaration talks about events in twelfth they waited two years they didn't summons this taxpayer until two thousand and fourteen


will say right now i i i'm saying as you're saying it's me i find it hard to imagine that he was i know that he was asking for the mandatory minimum there is a lot about this case it's hard to but he certainly argued at length and i think that was a again this


grant waiver the statute is also very clear the language of the statute refers to an applicant applying for section four a one certificate and then towards the end of section four a one a one the statute says


case as opposed to through generic rulemaking we have had this position for at least the last twelve years on the question of completeness let me just draw your attention to the intervenors brief at page thirty


the same thing and constitution the same arguments were made it was a denial there and they argued waiver and the court of appeals in the fourth circuit took jurisdiction over that question and answered it the second circuit in the same context


don't see how that is a better job of it because there is your client relieved but that's not a better job to someone else who falls into the new black hole you've created but your honor we responded to the government's assertion that this is the first time or one of the few times there's probably a


notice of deficiency mailed during the third year right if you satisfy that criteria you look back then you get a three year lookback period is that you that's when you finally know what the i r s think you are right so it shouldn't be


findings and that was the basis of it on page two of his findings of fact actually the first sentence of his findings of fact that having considered testimonial evidence in conjunction with the admin and exhibits it's found that


case assuming that he was entitle to fifteen hours of a b a treatment or whatever the thing is that he asked for assuming he was entitled to that in twenty thirteen was he not harmed by not getting it why


actually raises an important issue before the circuit basically the lower court denied i mean granted the motion to dismiss based on the articulation of the trade dress elements now as you know as in our


determination there was no in ten for him to mislead anyone of that at most some of his testimony was in an inexact whether or not he was slumped over his wheel is subject to interpretation you couldn't really see from the video what his body


presented to ms paid during the interview and i submit that probable cause to arrest was established or at least arguably established through the statement of ms crosby it was an established only after the interview with


standing for the proposition of if there's immunity individual immunity then the municipality is off the hook already as we talk about in our reply brief that deals with the state's waiver of its sovereign


case that this court cited in affirming the lower court's snyder versus town insolation the court this court quoted snyder as saying disease is not the injury injury occurs on exposure


fine we what we what what you said actually was we don't set the nicotine level we don't determine an addict of those we've never studied an addictive dose and nicotine this is his exact words is merely a nuance that


section d that you look to what has been specified in the list l c a and here in appendix forty four expressly says it is the amount on an annual basis now there may be at you know as


in this river keeper i would submit to the corps still riverkeeper does they don't have an injury because of the the this permit being available to millennium they don't have an injury there is


event although nine eleven involved two particular towers being destroyed the trauma was throughout lower manhattan so are these rights that can be waived yes


were not fifty five when the plan was sold somehow continue to be employed by four have some form of status that allows them to continue to accrue benefits under the


we'll start with the united states here is block


sleep at night he had to tell the truth that's why he came in and they said those things to the jury knowing that the whistleblower award had been they didn't offer to share that was a lower award by the very witness they called to corroborate


a defect in the indictment here it's not a jurisdictional defect and that's the important distinction to make because then we get into play or conceivably there would be a waiver argument that the government's not pursuing that argument here given the


they knew that he was living alone with his grandparents and then been testimony before the immigration judge he said he didn't know why you could argue that he only speculated since on the young perhaps then he didn't know anyone he refuted the


social group i would also say that there are substantial overlap between the two groups and far from being refined as a group that he is identifying and highlighted before the board was a broader group and i don't think that remain and the immigration judge


this a case of it is my two colleagues have already started asking who were there are facts that need to be determined by a jury and analyzing this whole scenario before applying the law because we start


the book the screenplay view the film which was never provided to her but there is netflix so maybe she saw it that way and i know you're all stuck with having to do that now i reserve two minutes i know i'm way over but


would strongly urge the court to affirm the awarding of the fees as well thank you very much appreciated


points with respect to that points of evidence actually there's the boy's testimony from his first depositions us session in which he says that the officers weren't communicating nobody was trying to talk to me


in that case the second officer who did the search was unsure whether the first officer who conducted the search the second officer thought he interrupted the the first officer in his procedure and the first officer


your client got correct hundred ten percent yes your honor however the broadness of the duty to defend is to me irrelevant in this case and i would agree roger except for


for all the claims you have in the complaint are you relying on equitable tolling are are there actual acts in any of those counts that happened within the statute of limitations you understand my question i'm afraid i don't quite


is here today the trial was fundamentally unfair to miss smith in the class for four reasons or for reasons this court should not allow the judge into staying southwestern secured this judgment through discovery of misconduct


when determining whether or not to terminate mr warm i'd also point out the that he would have been terminated regardless of the stairwell incident i don't believe she stated those exact words in her deposition


plead guilty to that this is not a math this issue math this is irrelevant to this case and had the district court in two thousand and four done the taylor analysis it could not have determined that the union rated


living in the united states back to mexico the level of wasn't at issue in this case if you look at the complaint itself it does say that the financial loss was between five hundred and fifteen hundred


you say i'm handing you a summons complaint so everyone in all of these similar example cases new to the same extent as the father in this case what it was and pass it on to the next person and we see that in times past the court has not


that are imposed are authorized by law in when you apply that policy or that procedure to the circumstances where the sole issue is counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal you do just that well but let me let me just stop


construct of trust water does not really is not going to be able to reach the corpus of these assets and that therefore judges you've got to decide right now we can like them decide that one article eight does in fact apply then


intermediaries operate in a highly regulated an automated market which depends on instantaneous processing of transactions millions of transactions are


first of all this like to say that miss mcdonald had never been incarcerated prior to this and that therefore this experience was absolute torture it was traumatic it was terrifying and permanently life altering so insistent on it miss mcdonald has struggled with posttraumatic stress weight


representation of counsel does say and he affirms if you're if you are not a u s citizen you're guilty plea will result in your permanent removal from the united states and he marks yes and then and before her you know she has this


the united states at the end of the petition mr dadt affirmed that he went over the petition with counsel and that all the answers were true and correct in the plea agreement mr that egg knowledged that there may be


have to work on an exit strategy in which you'll be leaving the company in six weeks but in the meantime we're going to work with you to help you get a new job or let you take time off to get a new job and so forth


fired toys twice his answer is no but then he comes back around and there's a bit you wanted to sit down and talk with about leaving the company yes that's right you had already told her she was leaving the company we're going to talk about


control booth and asked to be let out of the barrier but to answer your honor's first question is this approximating attack by definition if we're relying on this court's most recent decision and patrick patterson versus wendy kelley for example is when


private it ministration there was nothing wrong with it and that's why i him urged the court to follow his directive to uphold his order private


merely having a gun in the home an open view necessarily gets you there but we have circumstantial evidence to get the judge just missed point we have circumstantial evidence that he was trying to intimidate the runaway and staying inside the home and that's why i mention the dogs


committed had we had an opportunity to get documents and we had the opportunity to place witnesses under oath that in fact it would establish at the time the various statements were made from an agenda that


able to ask about the use of funds asked dr sanderson about where the funds were going and what they were used in this case you know inquired about whether he was hiding money from the wife there was cross examination about that yes but but these


silent and open the doors of course investigation i don't i don't know that that's what briggs is saying that it was he's just saying whatever happened i didn't give him i didn't i don't he's saying i didn't give them permission that's just not true and there was an


inability to get out of bed excessive vomiting not eating all of that happened over the weekend and he interacted with several ceo's during that time asking for medical help but because of his condition having just had a stroke


the herrera case the for the duke case there's a number of cases that say when you have a general jury verdict general form verdict i want a case with contrasting with with policy language that makes the


hey you handle it all take it out to bid place it with somebody and we'll just get our check so that's how that happens and it was unique here that we had mostly to go shit leases because the vast majority of plant we're talking about with this holy will we're her family


protect that so that it can be maintained absolute future right in that some point when there's seven times the number of cattle on that pasture than ought to be there that's a problem right and is that where the fraud lies absolutely and when mr fulton says that can't possibly be where the


the undisputed evidence is the contract between those two parties was not a fully integrated document it didn't list every single place where student life campers might participate or be found during the the occurrence of the


with that contention your honor it would not arise out of the owner the ownership maintenance or use of the premises lease to student life if some party who was present on the on the campus by virtue of some other event was not participating in the event


expectations throughout the litigation your honor that they are separate there is a i think it is a reasonable interpretation of the plain and unambiguous language of this endorsement to find that this particular liability is covered under that language i think upon a


in time count one is the defendant prejudiced that would create all sorts of back doors as the court already suggested and what the eastern court held was that for example supervised release if you leave the a c c can place is there prejudice easten


as i did so i gave in my brief because of the similarities to this particular fact pattern and what the jury would have heard throughout this trial and all of its rather wonder can syria either ask for thirteen evidence if it wasn't charge or could have been brought in as


report sent though the waiver argument that you say wasn't considered back today l j what's the status of that right now is that that was a favorable part of the decision write history judge it was remanded back to the commissioner it has not been scheduled that's


sec and the court credited mr through six testimony that there was no specific warning before the slab and that was a decision that the court made in accordance with the summary judgment standard what's also important to


play that that make her a free acted the way she did and what what action are you referring to there the action of not not initially eliciting it right away that it was a sexual assault at this point she just wanted to be safe she wanted to get out of there i believe as she


i understand your honor unfortunately these are cases are somewhat facts and fact intensive and i'd appreciate the fact that you've read you're familiar with the facts but some of the facts i think need to be pointed out is that in the revealing of mr johnson's l


rebuttal we believe that in fact mr johnson was blindsided by what had happened with dr than in the determination of guilt he benefits there's absolutely no record in any of pretty intros documents indicating that they informed him in advance that he was there


the the evidence and continued on with the disability claims up until dr denise conclusions but again dr denise conclusions are one we believe based upon credibility of whether mr johnson was mullingar or not so it's


forcing a person to attempt to prove a negative when they can when you require a mental mentally injured person to come in and prove that they're still mentally injured it's simply an impossible standard to bear so for these reasons


ability to work with this definition and the plan and she gave him a definition that's different than definitions in the plans they produced to me the definition they gave to our treating doctor was are you totally


a remedy and third year honors the involvement of congress in the criminal justice system in human trafficking congress has legislated frequently and intensively in these areas yet never allowed a personal damages remedy in the


many victims as many defendants as she can and so she hits upon my guy who had the poor judgment to use the word mission in an e mail to a woman that he never even met and why


facts of this case yet this morning this is a situation where police officers responded at nearly midnight to a laundromat were loaded magazine had been found and judge benton you're exactly correct there's no good explanation for how this magazine got into


only four hours per day for a period of time the city granted that the undisputed evidence showed that there was a reasonable accommodation in the city gave it to him now he sounds


time he said look at the doctor's note for what my limitations are but he never said i can't try if i can't get there he didn't say that before his terminations he said the reasons


those policy limits at the time of the impact of the vehicle the law school court went on to say you know that's all theoretical we're not going to base coverage on that and i understand berkeley has distinguished this case on the basis that there is no


statutory argument that property damage is not part of bodily injury insurance


to be said because what we're dealing with in the courts have been very clear powers was did the s h s say exercise and power granted by congress when it


to participate in any evaluation the moment mr potter i'm not sure these facts really bear on the question of how many days of non excludable time passed and by my calculation if we


richard says it's clear that if you look richard says it's clear error with respect to the ultimate determination of what of applying the law to the facts but here there's a preliminary question did


to filings and actions that the thomson hind defendants had taken in other higher actions they take him but applied across the board not just to this particular case let me ask


jurisdictional waiver the there is nothing in the record after january well that's what it is he said it is there ever any answer that a consensus has been reached among the various different ways as to what they


by the county in this case i mean it's a pretty unique record in in depth is issuing with the county representative the question was asked what documents as the county relied upon in formulating the opinion different from what stated in mr hertzog


was conveyed in the letter that was ultimately sent as far as documents written documents


say ok that's past you well two things one is i'm not saying that we have a strong case and we have to consider that but second we don't want to keep him in prison that's never been opposition here we want him to do what he united states district court has ordered him to do


top management had the control over the lower management who also had them control and custody over the point so for those reasons i think that could be cases are different and the deliberate indifference clearly failed as a matter of law because there's nothing clearly established college setting that


we're just going to say the same thing well i think the statutes are the same i think the differences are that we've argued in our case that it's not you don't go just


defending themselves in this case not state attorney general's office we haven't been able to begin to a lot of the real specific fact is all we have is a general statutory language it says that i put this court's interpretation malyon it was it was sort of lurking


officials for student on student sexual assault and some of those pieces have even held that it's clearly established although the fourth circuit did did not but those were all under equal protection and am i right in understanding that you


different i don't think it will decide whether or not it's just the constitutional right and the deprivation theory exists i think it will stab this is the level of pleading with the elements need to require with it for purposes of clearing out that it's the


of the payment plan and even the emails there's nothing in the e mails that say that two hundred dollars payment prior to surgery was part of any payment plan well


later you have no idea whether or not the person really understood their rights we need some sort of record no matter how small and brief to be sure the david declaration from the agent you would say would suffice that's what the ninth circuit said in gomez


correct if we did sheers to proceed in state court which we can still do even under seventy one point one the substantive law that would apply is the law rooted in the constitution the guarantee of just


to go forward and just whether the plea it happened i mean it was clear that he was pretty consistent on that fourteen b but we never have an opportunity to build a record with respect to any of these things in any state court proceeding because


immigration judges there proceedings and from immigration judges were terminated because that and i just found that they had no knowledge of what was going on as opposing counsel articulated those students who took curricular practical training as they were told


injury to then they have only suffered economic loss to the physical damage to somebody else we have property damage if you can talk about that what loss is derived from that but we also have the new jersey supreme court addressing in the lead


settle in but of course that time to settle is worth it for the ultimate protection not to be ultimately sexually assaulted yeah and in fact and i u p d again is it's a fluid document it's always changing ready you can always revisit it and it's it's actually a good time to collect


though griffin myers if named if part of the enterprise bristol myers weapon out there like in a big group in conspiracy trying to promote its own advantage j f k with we really know what happened because the discovery allowed on the recall clean


who relied on it and here is how that representation affected our purchasing decision that would be a non preemptive claim and it would be a clear benefit line when we moved to dismiss the case there with banks well what is our


for whatever reason whether it be in convenience or just not taking me the requirement seriously chooses not to comply that amounts to recklessness to go with one of those direct but your direct example example of him


cases are talking about substantial evidence but the reason is not an issue in this case is because even if the district court i was applying a preponderance of the evidence type standard clearly there's enough evidence here to show that mr simpson


assignment report saying no violations now the government takes the position that it was no violations in respect to a qualifying inspection if it's a qualifying inspection for a new license you'd never have


therapist reinforces her her but we've so her these memories and with which which we can see that she and she clearly believes are true based on the way this this


and it being all about the therapist suggestion but the therapist's role basically helps solidify the the memories that a occurred


restoration act passed in one nine hundred ninety three this is one of the bad acts that i can remember that actually has i think the panel is pretty cheap well aware of that super statute and it's


the change that was that resulted from the two thousand and ten amendment is that the disclosure materially added to what has been


why should we why should we understand it that way sure your first point is exactly as you noted if we focus on what is the tangential benefit through indirectly of others it is writing in direct into the principle purpose definition that does not


collectors because both both of those categories were regulated by the state therefore it is of lesser importance than here where if the f t c p a doesn't apply to crown nothing does and the


increase our liquidity through long term borrowings and the issuance of additional common units in other partnership securities stoneware made very clear this is our business model we look at it


because the produce sherry's weren't monitoring much they were receiving payment from these mutual funds why do you say that failure to solicit competitive bids in and of itself is a


what are we doing a continuum again those participants that want low cost index fund investing can go there at four basis points at the low end there are wharton


well what i meant your honor is that they serve food they serve drink perhaps even have less of a sales function than servers outside of hotels but it makes little sense to say that


he's not learning the way other people do he's having fatigue energy problems he can't focus you can organize material if we go if we go all the way back into to sixth grade seventh grade the last three years


parents returned the district's request for their consent with a notation that they would seek their own private independent evaluation it was given over to government


accommodation i think an error that the school district and hearing officer both made is by applying something like


would appear to at least on its base be met that's an excellent question and i'm i'm i'm prepared to address we're also interested in actually the answers so it wasn't ruled eight used as


do the guaranteed that those benefits and band plays absent to process are guaranteed those benefits with staying in place if they at cheap a certain level of performance then we might be talking about that but in a situation where we have a policy that


acknowledge that one of the reasons why they were changing the rules was because in the modern era stockholders get information more quickly and they simply said this isn't an issue that should be left to state law essentially the plaintiffs cite state law cases an injunction contact saying


the motion to withhold we weren't even part of the referral order from judge pesca so we never had the opportunity to conduct cover you any of that it was only learned later that when when the court created the


which the class members and the n f l were parties and to which my client and the others at my table were not ari's it was a breach by the class members the class will before we get to that let's let's again address


parties let me just make two other points if i may with my reading time first of all on the referral point there's an argument made that this is beyond the powers of an m d l by the time we're at the settlement implementation point


know who these people are simply not true rich the record is through out the name of the group and everyone agrees it's this one group it's leader and two members there are complaints in the record against these people that are filed why those complaints should become


father's place of residence ten years before after being hired like green as i'm sorry this is a brand that's ron are you saying that the only evidence that would have been acceptable to


zombie correctness to the state court the trial and the appellate court findings of fact and that difference is also owed to the state court legal conclusions unless there is a showing by


requires some parsing i'm not sure that it's as clear as either side claims on acting as a dead devil's advocate to your position one of the provisions to see one


and twenty times that amount and so that's the purpose of care for a and the attorney for the statute there in the fee shifting statute is to be able to allow someone like that to come in the court and there's plenty of circumstances where


that is correct your honor because again he was


mean this is a complaint this was a motion to vacate our claim to be fought which are considered civil complaint so i'm not sure that i understand why that distinction would make a difference i mean it's still a


doesn't read the word material out of the statute it just it just provides you examples of what what would constitute material support i can put it another way your honor i don't


we've had a chance to review the briefs the record excerpts and in many instances we've had a chance to look at the record as well in the case so feel free to go right to the heart of your argument without again welcome and will begin


i didn't do anything that came within a country mile of what the policy said which i were quired did the university require me to fill it out was everybody required to do that you had to work fill out if you have something that is what they


violation my property interest to the extent that's actually pled here one of the elements is a state action we didn't deny him any property we're not post there's a there's a district court straight on point here from the northern district says


concerns about how fidelity or one of those communications i should say he expressed concerns about how fidelity did not maintain reserves for insurance losses and charge premiums of one third of the coverage amount as a rule which seemed high considering they


rephrase my question the problem i'm having is it doesn't look to me that i can revisit that question dunno over at this point i had a ruling from the district court it went up to the circuit the circuit said amen and affirmed


insurance disability insurance all to offer the bank security so his mind his theory of defense was given all the alternative forms that security that were provided by the


clause which of course has a federal definition and we're asking does does a murder by omission or an attempted murder by omission fit into the force costs and i know that the the government in its argument said that no


of misled or rebuffed and into believing yeah you have this right but it's not a real right because counsel's not going to be provided to you and so that's where edwards comes into play because clearly he's


go was laying on the ground right correct and right on his side your honor that means he can still kick he can still fight he is not restrained and that is the security issue and that is the


unreasonable because it wasn't supported by reasonable suspicion that a dangerous person remained inside the arbroath home and it's important to look at this case the government makes a point to fact that officer monroy in new you know before he


and to be convicted based on evidence and not based on rumor innuendo or hearsay but you take judge prior's point if you can imagine a venn diagram of the due process clause excludes all of the stuff in the confrontation clause excludes the stuff then what is this doing what independent bite


essentially toothless for the cases that the thirty to ninety seven seems designed to reach that is instances in which the applicable limitation period to quote has already expired if the applicable


limitations period expired we can't not read the after in the application oh so it says before on or after i will grant you that the after does create some surplusage but i mean if you read the text


issue i will i will take whatever you want my new issue you want to present you can certainly give your own an opportunity to say something about that you won't have an opportunity to respond to but that's your that's your call i think


case which related to the other arguments on the brief and i understand your honor has stated but the point is we had four really other arguments made i brought them up that i wanted to reach them in the opening and that was related


with what's going on with his colleague is as enough or what happened with his colleague was a play it was a show was not in it he doesn't know that sure he doesn't know that but what was shocking at the trial because i was present there i was shocked i know the government


searched him and exposed him to his neighbors and the points i'll make there are the officers there we didn't know he wasn't wearing boxers well it's an actual plaintiff will you take the plaintiff as you find him if you cause him embarrassment and emotional distress with an illegal


of the officers of the deputy state certain things happened the plaintiff doesn't refute that those specific things happen but states other things for example the plaintiff says they're on you can do that on summary judgment


admits that he was using these drugs at any point you know but one of the one of the people that he was keeping the drugs for quote keeping drugs for are not rich deceased correct that's correct the mother of a friend of his that's correct life


that happened with mr perez and i see that my time is almost up and i just want to address the issue that if your if your honour's about the post evidence actions that were not admitted admitted they were not


not the facts that we have here that is to say that that in the days before garrett's arrest girt being arrested on september th gear was already known to


his words were that was everything that is to say he's he's now he garrett is now admitting it claiming that a search of his shed that occurred


oh that that the the drugs that are on in my possession that are going to result with two with a mandatory sentence of a lot more years those were mine it was like an is like saying that


application under seal they had to wait sixty days we had to see whether the government in fact was going to proceed or whether it wouldn't intervene we got the answer to that no other suit was filed


not signing away the cause of action they're not signing away the control of the cause of action they're just they claim i've given up potentially four percent of the recovery or maybe a


c enter that was the beginning the middle and the end of the reasons on medicare but your honor that is exactly what the court found and the court recognized what the or later in the government chooses not to do which is escobar


evidence didn't put it in there or if they put in there that this this officer perjured himself would be a very different situation then you would be in kelly versus curtis type case


all five thousand dollars returns it only looked at the subset of returns that had schedule c's that was approximately two thousand eight hundred it then took a sample of those two thousand eight hundred and that sample was two hundred and eighty three returns in the way the government did that is they put all the returns in


regulation to mike his contract between fancy fonts and maligned and it wasn't done does that affect the outcome of this case your honor in our opinion it does not affect directly the outcome of this case first of all would say


claim in the sense that if the panel were to find that there is cause ation here for the eleven plaintiffs that paid after gene


alternatives that were at issue and before the corps when it went about looking at these cumulatively now the corps received these permits for mining that would cover over fifty thousand dollars acres of phosphate mining and determine that because they were


at the indirect effects of processing that gold because that's what you're going to do with it similarly in wilder's guardians looking at coal mining there they looked at well obviously you're going to be processing this in this so there are emissions that are associated that's the


the one involving mr benjamin the other traffic stops who are related to other individuals so what so when you say they reflect different aspect ratios your time out completely different traffic such you're not talking about this


certain service for the ms williamson are part of those plan documents


financial transactions that they engaged in and here they make enemies actually channel millions of dollars to an unlawful east up and didn't pay taxes on that income and then later acknowledged that they owed that hacks liabilities bad is the


the pardon me i'm trying to focus on what exactly would you're addressing right now i just want to be clear those are the statements that you say were first amendment protected these statements to us and freema yes yes


employment where perhaps reverse discrimination was involved and also intermingled with her own private employment issues about her own authority and could find no


steps back but it's officers to bill who is the one that says that he smells alcohol marijuana and if you and what and the reason why i think that the obstruction and the intoxication have to be joined


as is defined very very clearly and i want to get to the five elements of it but it is just what it sounds like and i think i think first of all it was unclear that she had anything for years at various times she she said she didn't like him anymore i think


then you have to assume that the only thing he thought is that well the statue of limitations is two hours too if i hang out in a culvert for two hours i'm clear and that's not what happened he went home and those cases say that it needs to be an unbroken chain


fourth amendment violations me your identity is not suppressive all it said mean your identity evidence is different from other kinds and the relevant circuit authority is guzmn bruno then in two thousand and five


good morning i'm john bogart i'm from tucson arizona and i'm here on behalf of henrietta clark the issue we have in this appeal is one more appear regarding what is results reasonable suspicion in order to stop a


and the warning is on page you give an explicit warning that if you want to argue something that is not going to be backed up by an instruction then that's your it's your case this


point you're going to them because they are a member of a certain organization and i think that's what the trial court's ruling essentially does it says the police that if you have that one xtra factor you don't need anything else go ahead and use the threat of deadly force and i think that's a


need and very for he would have a defense no matter how many times he'd been deported it seems to me this is a different situation very no question that he is an illegal alien and i guess what


what you have is an agent who had the opportunity either through discussion or otherwise to talk about that so there was no showing of any nexus that isn't a strictly intertwined it's completely different the facts are completely different more importantly this deals with the


crimes we now must look to see when it comes in their raised in the issue of a felony murder offense is their requirements for specific intent to commit those underlying felonies in order


the district court had the opportunity to listen to them the district court did listen and then mr moran was eager to attend kilogram cocaine transaction the government's theory is always been it's been liar on liar the informant was


these people were these people were staring we brought in we brought it we tried a good case you know there are times when we are known as lawyers we're going to lose a case and we try a great case and we're going to lose we're going to walk away and we feel


cannot remember right now ok


that everybody else was known announced that everybody there including nash was highly intoxicated people didn't know what was going on there was violence that the victim inflicted on other


stop which is reasonable at its exaction might become unreasonable because of the scope for the intensity of the search and that's exactly what happened here as the court


progeny have all held that the illicit knife sure of what felt during a pat pat down must be readily apparent what this officer felt was something hard to prevent boots which in fact are common


be dismissed and i know that counsel and i have a my initial take on this case went one way and then when i studied the authorities that with the other we used to have a


represented that it was mr valeri out who was the other party in this conversation well they have to prove foundation the judge reserved the right to exclude the tape for that ground he said he would give a living thing


written notice that would be how the case would write


statement of nursing course that was above that was not material so we are confronted there is if that's the defense position that they were entitled to these two instructions we need to reality yes that's where we


if they're talking about two separate actually three carry use possess and all they said is because possesses broader as you say there's going to be a higher standard to meet that but it's just three so that three separate


comments to that effect in his sentencing he said i'm looking at the record but it's a somewhat quantum leap from saying you have past conduct to saying this particular


no clearly there was no clear unambiguous nevada rule either statutory or case law made that prevented that plan of attack if you will with that prevented that particular course of action via


especially i disagree that it was with him and of the injecting first of all i would remind the court again of the posture in which this happened it was after closing arguments by the government defense was ready to go forward with their closing argument it


had a u s citizen at the time that made the validity of prior marriage is particularly relevant and in paris this court noted there's no miscarriage of justice if it looks like the jury had received strong evidence of the


of those determination a reasonable suspicion and probably right now the time segregating out the probable cause for the jaywalking i just want to make sure i understood what your position was on just a pure terry stop there's no


he talks about and i think it's uncontroverted that a quarter mile in each direction there are businesses there shopping center and i'd also point out that in defense counsel's argument to the judge ronnie are one twenty nine he admits this is a business shopping center


of your cases that's upheld the community caretaker doctrine search has they've always made some other attempts to make me go so what it was and it's of is supposed to be a very limited thing there has to be an emergency and there has to be a need for immediate police


based on the the final on it do i have that capture kind of accurately yes you do ok well but what do we make of the fact that your client never filed it's i'm sorry i didn't hear i couldn't we make


primary job is to make these calls your honor your honor the important thing here is the fact that it was shown by his own admission in the record that he didn't read all of these stories and so


think you understood the distinction i was trying to drum i'm thinking a lot of people want adventure movies like rambo and they fantasize about being rambo but they have no intention whatsoever of doing


imprisonment in the state prison so it doesn't fit under the taylor categorical approach and then i can move on to the next problem that i have with that and that is that they did not proper the correct


so between the magnetic meter and when you collect all of your items assuming you're not selected for secondary screening you are within an area that's protected and surrounded by law enforcement and things of that nature i suppose it could happen


would cure the problem the second problem is that the instruction that the court proposed read as follows and i'm reading from ph twenty four of the excerpt the jury observed a considerable group of high


precludes him from appealing despite oral statements made at a subsequent hearing the stated rationale for this holding is that a non contemporaneous statement cannot relate back to the time that the play was made so that's why i'm asking you about floyd


numerous other occasions whether that was an issue the roaches that were found the explanation offered weren't you was was not that strong but nevertheless the trial trial judge this judge had this all and came to a conclusion and


needed that is the power records which mr ballasts will address right now were that were unfair inappropriate and not unusually high i think of


grants testimony that people that he followed were probably growing marijuana but they just in find it and that just is completely unbelievable but the second point i want to make and that's the issue is that the


of treatment for for substance abuse and he did it this is a child dr karpf said it needed to be under the guidance of the court this is a child that needed approximately six months and a halfway house after that and dr


of pictures and they didn't come with one there was nothing there's nothing in the record where the government says your honor we have all this documentation we have an expert here to testify that these pictures are indeed of


of methamphetamine and methamphetamine in different in different states of preparation and all of that information came before the jury but the course the problem


making banners as part of the participation and on the banners many of them wrote in the name of god the most merciful the most gracious praise be to god and had those banners displayed on the wall again if you put this in the situation of teaching


look at in determining that can turn or consecutive so unnamed factors have to be put in the equation absolutely what are they here we don't know because they weren't available that's the whole point of my brief we don't know because the because the


information deletes it will never be able to retrieve it out of his or her computer that's why based on your question viewing is not enough there must be evidence that a person knew that it was


that it's not giving any consideration to what happened before he reentered and that's the reason why the court committed legal error in the extent of its downward departure and why the court should remain and for that reason if the court has any question about whether the


ms martinez number twenty eight actually getting on the jury given that she was number twenty eight twenty eight well see that's the thing is our side did you


employment area don't often have cases where i'm standing in front of you talking about the fact that the term in the contract really is not open to interpretation by anyone the other issue that we typically don't have in cases that we have in this


mourning it please the court would like to reserve three minutes if i might my name is tony mary representing the appellant here tell me russell we're here on a following a decision an adverse


defense counsel and u s attorneys ever draft waiver language to it to address that particular deficiency is well i think schudrich actually provides a pretty good example of on there was no question and cedric that that the


fashioned the remedy based upon the facts of this case and he concluded that mr mchugh to should be enjoined from soliciting and contacting and doing business with rentals


you're looking at a non compete agreement you look at the revenues generated by the employee for the company by the former employer immediately preceding his terminations


really jumps out here that makes credibility even more critical i think that it was is that this is what we call the no dope conspiracy and let me just say that i was in the u s attorney's office for thirty years and retired six years


no other two years down the district court actually went through and recalculated the guidelines on the record under the two thousand and eleven edition of the guidelines manual and so how far down to go how many months


and mr manley and the other appellants if you serve time tell me what you've asked for so minute if you would please yes judge we have requested three minutes for a bottle please


mr barker says family and friends of mr bryant certainly considered himself a close personal friend of mr barcus the second victim who identified mr lamar that was a man named victor ross garnaut and this came up with the are


stickley selling an investment product we only do it when and we don't do it when the person's puffing the we you


to do cetera so why was this evidence not admissible why was the tax advice not admissible it was not admissible your honor because it did not comport with the provisions of eight zero three three for


does that do to your client i mean there are like three concurrent sentences correct or would it affect the fact that there are three concurrent sentences is that just the end of the story that just means well it would still be important obviously not have that conviction if


i'd like to focus on three issues this morning first and most important is the issue raised by the supreme court in footnote four in its recent board that decision would preserve rather than raise be more accurate


update with teed up in the smith case in this case what did they allege a naked allegation that says generic companies didn't update what they don't do first of all it's meet the standard that the


m l part meaning qualified manufacturer list and the approved sources are kewpie semiconductor and rochester electronics it goes on to describe but the actual material received was submitted to


denied the seminal issue in this case is whether his applicable guideline range has been lowered and we rely on three things in support of our position first and foremost last month the third circuit in a case united states versus avani


happened with mr joyner section thirty five eighty two relief is not section thirty five eighty two reduction in sentence is not allowed or appropriate because the sentence was not based on a guy adeline range that


anyone would agree with you on this the supreme court has probably said something about all of it we can stay on because everything keeps coming through to us but on equal footing with a it is five fourteen day and


and this was back in one nine hundred ninety eight he became a lawful permanent resident of the united states through a petition that was filed by his parents and in between these years he traveled back and forth between canada and the united states since


conditions we should look at it from that point on his claim for phone with settlement should should begin at that point at the point of him being you know being not allowed to return you know to his


twice a year because i don't want my you know my good credit to right out there because i thought that this was like my most like sympathetic case of the year and they also said no and they particularly said it was because of the adverse credibility


virgins for you that's correct your honor it was i was literally the friday before trial was to start on monday a conference call was held between the parties in the district court and there had been for probably a year discussion among the parties and the court over


time correct correct but judge well one thing that i think is important here and we didn't really say it in these terms in the brief but it appears that both sides were operating under the plan


maintaining it well this this was the i mean the feud which caused the first drive to the drive by shooting this was just a continuation of that


that that up i also want to point out that mister mr mclaren said that the judge did and said that he didn't have enough information actually what the judge said of pages six hundred seven and zero eight was that he


calendar month is not a lot of time for a union member to decide whether to complain to the partner labor about his own unions election but in deference to the autonomy of


that if the court actually made that holding i mean that would be clearly wrong demonstrably wrong because we know that and this was part of the point i was about to get to that among the federal and fences are


much we're talking dollars per acre for my clients and it works out to about an average of seventeen dollars per acre so for the signing bonus the total amount varied of between five hundred dollars and


this well what is an extension is it still the primary terms or is it just the first three let me just roses on ours here yeah it's the explain your sure paragraph corps extension of the primary term so we are still in and typically that's a benefit for


doesn't appear in the paragraph the effect is the same and i'm going to tighten by talking quickly about the title because i only have a few minutes and i want to i think it's very important the title is removed and they happily use rely on those removed renu


failed to disclose journey jury selection that he had two prior mr meter convictions he was excused before the deliberations then there was another another there was a female juror that had some problems on the panel but she was ultimately


question asked do you have any exposure with drug dealers with drug trafficking and the simple answer is that question was never asked you know mr straw mats or opponents counsel did at one point ask


court supplemental story which shows that the back pay amount has already been sent the judge did refer were one to these sanctions are what went on before it was able to in a


the night now this panel has the issue of sanctions which are clearly separate will from the merits and then another panel is going to have the issue of whether the back pay was calculated appropriately not with


these are not intended to supplant or replace the snyder calculations they are merely a supplement to them so counsel thought well he referred to car referred to these during the deposition so obviously they were just given to me so i have them


that that is correct but no one could challenge it at the initial threshold part of a forfeiture so for determining whether the asset should be part of a preliminary order forfeiture if mr kaufman doesn't have standing to challenge the government with respect to whether it's medicine


present summary perv without admitting the underlying documents was this summer group of two yes well that they were the summary that two analysts who testified there were objections to two portions of their statements


not this way that they didn't do more to try to introduce them one way and one way only and that was to admit them offering them for the truth of the matter asserted based solely on an authenticity stipulation and that based on that alone without the


will have to operate through the individual that's correct your honor and it's noteworthy that the individual bribe a orse in many of the cases we're in and all of the cases except for john valentine were not the sole owners of the


this there was evidence from which a jury could infer criminal intent but we're not arguing sufficient evidence with most counts but there was also countervailing evidence we cited some in our briefs the phone calls were to morris says well i hope you're low then you'll get the contract but


and the case that we have here we police must not lose sight of the fact that this is a sales position this is not an attorney this is not a doctor this is a person in sales and what matters in sales is the


only express stated interest in this case is the revenue generation interest where it said that it stays put up the district and it created it in such a way as to generate revenue now in that respect daycares hospitals exempt


arrest someone without a warrant or without probable cause and you do not do a war that's to say that when you when you serve a writ of execution that you can have you can keep the person from going around the place with you that's


what what's the problem what's the prejudice what's the legal prejudice if the statute only requires one with this one here can only charge but he wasn't charged that way he was charged with


also played to them he said that's what they do and that's you know a lot of times violence happens because they insult each other in social media and you know he didn't say anything specific that l s p at the insulted in his first you know when he first


are there and any one of those officers including the chief could have asked for a warrant at that time


have to be certainty that something terrible is going to happen is the logic of your position would allow if brandished gone by drug well when he gets home under your theory would they have been able to go into the house without a warrant i don't


in terms of two twelve relief to say this when the sincere decision came out and the decisions that followed the immigration courts didn't go back and automatically cancel all of the removal orders for individuals that were eligible for to tell


statement if there's no inference there's no inference and you cannot attribute those closures to the


and maintains the the preserved habitat to offset the habitat losses so i'm not sure if you're going if you're going there with your questions but what i'm sensing is a question about who is there a taking of money maybe or was the


this application based on brand's trade secrets versus after that i have not seen that but does the information from which you could question witnesses we get further information on


codefendant testified was cross examined were those factors in ganji also they were not in the end so the jury had a little bit more to come to its conclusions about the liberating dig in ignorance and i don't know that they had more to come to this far


express lee agreed to the terms and conditions of the bill of lading and then to that because they are each of the sub carriers the sub contractors issue their own transportation documents that somehow eliminates the ability of


just cited from the eleventh circuit in the third circuit in the cave for the court found there must be your relationship federal officer and the private person


argue that there wasn't much more to prove or credibility at the trial other than that one no you call it collateral evidence is that when you go i call it what collateral evans meaning extra evidence credibility evidence


committed but there was still a handprint and in this case i understand the difficulty with sexual and aggravated rape cases that as the state said there's often only one witness and i had there's no


you view bar tell which is the language and in the opinions that refer to causality is unnecessary to the decisions yes or i am aware of the language in


the argue when they remove these cases is that the government directed the warnings they come forth with military specifications showing that for architect and technical manuals the government says we had to do x y and z for warnings and


lack of notice undue delay prejudice and futility in the nearly seventy hears that this case was pending in the district court plaintiffs never moved to amend their complaint never submitted a proposed amended complaint and


and then went on to apply the general rules after removing the part of the agreement that was unclear apparently went on to apply the general rules and adopt the analysis of the cases in


equal protection and due process you know was this a purposeless law was an arbitrary well it becomes purposeless or becomes arbitrary when the state gives price fixing authority to private


of a weapon that will forseeable of the volitional use the use of a weapon that will forseeable a result and death or great bodily harm to another person not just some harm not just damage to property but specifically in an embed you asli in the statute


to notice of change if there is a an error in the notice of change we have to hold them harmless well why on earth are we going to have the right to submit change forms and to submit change information


licensing computer checks and all of those tasks are tied directly to the purpose of the traffic investigation here the district court found that the traffic stop ended at the eleven minute and fourteen


hear that more was produced to subpoena deacon's dicom then just the two pages because when you look at the transcript which the court had every right to look at under the this court's dorsey case because it's clearly


honor and again we take issue with that but that is we this was run through the city of new orleans the request as the lawsuit in the public record suit says was directed to the city of new


and i get rear ended i don't know for a certainty that the person who hit me is at fault i know i've been injured but i don't know their fault maybe the brakes failed and


with a deposition is when a party is questioned by the opposing counsel about or sometimes their own counsel about their they are the facts underlying their cases like in someone's office not in a courtroom right correct or


us with respect to the other paper conversion district courts in this circuit for twenty years citing


statute and failure to consider that affidavit in this context and to rely upon it is an affront to principles both comedy in federalism and also is specially inappropriate in a case like this where conduct in a


want you to know the stevens case again it's the courts are very hesitant to adopt islamic instructions when they're not they're not based on the text of the statute


sell alcohol boom boom boom sort of none of their so you know mike asking ok three individuals don't get me wrong i'm not suggesting that that minimizes whatever bad talent claim is but it just won't last domi you know


testify so absolutely an expert can rely on things that are not admissible the question is ultimately whether there will be support for that and this record doesn't tell me one way or the other on civil but we know we have mr barefoot mr barefoot someone who said he won jerking


fact to be based on the facts that i'd suggest this is premature and what we really ought to do is wait until we find the facts at a trial and the next time a case like this comes up what i'll recommend my client we do is we just wait and see what the judge says and if we have a really good liability case then you know we win at the end and we're


composition is just a characteristic which is the language in subsection point five to so the bottom line is that clearly the legislature in their in their


anything specific you're on it's a great question there is nothing specific and you can believe we scoured it for anything in the legislative history that particularly indicates why in section b they used the term shooting of another person however


the allegation about the liquor that was provided that was paid for but supposedly not provided an allegation about payments that were made from vendors at that event and allegation as to fourteen thousand dollar invoice


to provide him with that doctor for a while this court subscribes to a substantial compliance standard and under these facts it is at least in my mind no


a guilty plea one i think you said was the sentence the charge carried out a lesser sentence the other was because if he had gone to trial he may well have been convicted of the several other counts that had been alleged


engage in activities so we can't even you know there's a question as to whether or not what he did was using a minor but you know it's like a you know if i'm using a hammer that doesn't mean if i take a picture of the hammer i'm using it got


nine o'clock tomorrow


think that was in rate or was your honor i don't think they stipulating grogan's now i think it was in i think that was door one that was a stipulation in grogan the district court in this court found that invitee was broad enough based on the prior


into this area by summoning the vessel to come alongside the the so mighty chief and they moved personnel by of the so crane on to the miss chain which we believe more than is adequate to satisfy the broken test for occupancy and


understand my question if i understand your question correctly if i don't judge please feel free to redirect me i don't think it necessarily does because in this case the the way that it was


of violence are standalone acts of violence each deeply disturbing and tragic in each warranting a straightforward prosecution for what they were you know not a sprawling rico conspiracy that random acts of violence in


mistake i think that's a relevant qualified immunity claim because that's based on objective objective reason when there is and what's in his mind and subjectively in his mind whether it's a mistake and not is irrelevant to the objective


the his dress brackish impact images the core had a statutory and regulatory obligation to consider these mitigation bank credits as the preferred source of mitigation bank credits yet did not do


right that is the environmental harm


or federal that would hold a law enforcement officer is permitted to continue to speak in an attempt to induce a statement after a witness or suspect has in invoked their right to silence any


question of fact and the state conceits that that information was withheld and that the states can conceits that that information was favorable so rather this former convention if no in


same amateurism rules this court held that those rules are pro competitive and can be set aside only if the plaintiff bears the heavy burden of proving the existence of an alternative that is substantially less


minutes till he got downstairs so i don't understand how any of that contradicts his statement that you saw her to be an example pax romana whether he did you know i don't think it is because it took him forty minutes


stadium is my customer or sea world is my customer so long as there's an injunction that bars the implicit statements or advertising is a better word because what we're dealing with here that it


claim your honor you can certainly construe these claims as a p a claims if that is all in fact you argue that in the distant or did you not yes or no we think that this record got it right we think these are classic alter of yours claims those i understand but in order to get


just not doing what's supposed to be done on the statute is not something we ought to get to on ultra beer is a constitutional we ought to do that on something else it seems to me we have not really looked at what


repayable contract i don't we don't think it matters and on that point it like to say that because there may be some confusion here judge devil addresses this issue of page sixteen and


action and i take it judge pires is not might not convinced by judge doubtless comment or mine about the full application of responsibility walking away from the community fair enough but the point here is even if


medicare or secondary payers provisions an argument during virginia mason on whether such violations are actual even if medicare hasn't made payments to prevent private insurers from pushing medicare eligible patients with end stage renal disease or yesterday


thirty treatments for dialysis only six months of insulin you know only whatever a certain number of chemotherapy treatments because you you can have a bad plan you just can't have a discriminatory plan finally on the balance billing we don't


oh yes your honor i think that the st we were permitted leave to a man by the court and and tried to address what we understood to be the limitations and


the clock for that but this is a case about hindu school children in their california public schools and when th and th


of the state board of education approved know that the framework of the that the that the the the isolated portions of it you claim are a b is i to disparage your religion


bloated and visit physically uncomfortable and when he had declared a mistrial because of what had happened in the change of medications before proceeding again on august th the judge


regular removal but you could be detained but then we asked them and we said what do you prefer and they said we don't want to be an exit go we'd rather be in the united states well if that's the case then they have to be treated under be one when


they come back isn't that right no they don't well again the whole question of what it means to be treated and to be one what i was just saying before just gamelin is that somebody can be under be one and still be put into


you know a rigorous credible fear screening to then be able to return be returned without anything and i do think it's important to hear you know i mean what they say about that because the other thing to realize when you think about this is that


is a violation of the constitution but if the next case is slamming the face into a pine tree do you have to have a pine tree case what is the level of specificity you


body of law that makes it clearly established that that this at least arguably is excessive force now you may well win before a jury i mean i don't know all the details of how much she was resisting and things like that but but it


agreements it is not complete until reduced to a formal writing no binding contra result until it is done and that's a


what's occurring so we believe that the court cut a lot of corners the district court in wanting all the officers together and then i think your honor points it would go a little bit more towards in


be made no attempt to intervene so officer rates liability is multi faceted for many reasons and he's a least responsible of any of them but even he should not get off it's very clear there's many questions of fact in which a jury can hold him responsible


and they did and then when the california medical board came back and wanted information there was nothing they and they said in fact that they didn't have any duty because they refused to respond and they


premises so are you talking about the start a sign that no longer is their property i'm just talking generally is generally yeah ok so and that would be because you would need they would need that property owner's


happen if the challenge is raised in an appropriate forum here the district or looked at for example the two thousand and fourteen complaint and said does this complaint fairly raise the question of the validity of the test for significant


demoted it was the court made the same reference in for now for it is a case in which the court found that one exception to the constructive discharge rule that is the plaintiff was seeking an entirely different career but before going on to


hospital did not compensate him for any of this elective procedures and did not come sooner for any of us professional services they only compensating him the same flat rate that was an issue in alexander and all the on call cases which was five hundred dollars for each of the on


it i think that the answer to that question is under blue ridge it fell in terms of are only required to inform me ensure that they have the right to assume their defense when they disagree


crimes and confront people who are dangerous and at times have no respect for the law or the officers who are attempting to enforce the law on that shift in the early morning hours of november th two thousand and sixteen


in this fashion and they chose to rely on the fact that they believe that well they didn't believe the koran they didn't really believe that you know another enemy was for closing they face off at the use of the wrong name on it with boy the foreclosure and that was that of that


under the reinvestigation provisions and then also turning to the proper notice and that makes sense when you look at the purposes that drive the s t r a the purpose really is to prevent against transmission of inaccurate information that's really the


arizona i think ah and those claims were subject to review and they were also subject to the look back on it


monitoring and auditing that's the beginning yes your honor ok so so so what so what is the thought that what duty if they violated their what is it that they've done i don't think anything they violated their yacht or i think that that sets up how the n f l became involved with the controls of


takes your honor this would be a completely different case if they had an allegation that the n f l and the n f l personnel and the n f l has lots of personnel don't labor under the misconception there is an existence a return to play policies or not or is it just


doctors and trainers is the only way to connect it there is no corporate document that incorporates the national football league is there your honor there are not is a separate incorporation but it is its own entity they cite tons of


there's there's good evidence here that even with that they didn't really they were just going through the motions they were going to the just go to that nd job the i think they call it the airport escort


observed over a number of years what this position did and so i think it's it's you know i it's and it sounds to me like given your understanding of summary judgment there would never be a summary


abilities to see what he could and can do the f t e came back and said you can't perform the essential functions with or without accommodation that fact disqualifies him from that job as a matter of law he does not contest or


good morning my name is marshall blue so i'm representing deputies bo's astro and his appeal from the qualified immunity in this case deputies astro has been held liable not for his own unconstitutional acts but his under the


court's decision specifically we're supposed to look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party was the law clearly established and was there a constitutional violation the district court applying the graham factors found that there was a


some time you could two minutes and thirty seconds on the clock please


this was in place talk about a simultaneously filed charge but we don't know that to be the case here then shouldn't the district court of allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint plaintiffs did have the opportunity


in the most recent report suggests and this is now a point in favor of the government suggest that really filled out the other two he was just kind of blowing through it and not paying much attention i'm not necessarily sure that's the case judge


arizona's legitimate regulatory interest can be met in a period of one hundred and ninety dollars days in order to have an orderly election what justifies the delay beyond that and there's nothing in the record at explaining what they're there they gave three reasons cost which i think is a


would because us term limits speaks only in terms of an election there is no precedent to my knowledge involving restrictions other than excuse me restrictions that depart from or add to the qualifications clause


primary obligation is to represent that party rather than her constituency as a whole but that's because i mean in in those kinds of cases you know the alternative to being in a racially gerrymander district is that you would get to vote in a non racially jury member district which


of the oregon statute the federal statute importantly also requires an intent to influence delay or prevent testimony that is not required by the oregon statute which only has a mens rea of knowingly further oregon law


visa now it may seem whatever concerns the court may have in this individual case will be different in general passed with enforcing the overall system and so if we are not adhering to that system


and that was a defense strategy that was the gillingham made that wasn't a basis for removal of counsel moreover carter nor gillingham ever requested the gillingham be


wanted to treat it as a penalty phase or a penalty case and not contest guilt and carter wanted to present a full blown guilt defense and testify


did and we later find out the collective action is inconsistent with arbitration how do we deal with that well i guess i my problem is i don't agree with the premise of concepcion apply yes is the question opposing counsel says it doesn't apply


created in express right to have a collective that to have a collective action and the supreme court said even with that express right it can be way and you can have a waiver of


remedies and figure out what she needs to do to protect her claims so that argument and i think if the argument is that dealing with grad students is not a tough inference that the grad student may be a graduate assistant or an employee of the


she was hospitalized arrested jailed and fined and the village was told in a public notice posted that if mrs wang ever returned to china she would be quote duly punished and this is not based on this it was all for sending the religious


whatever i may have you this was a circumstance in which her mother in law was going to be significant i mean gosh if my father in law said your mother in law went to the hospital tuesday fortunately it was nothing serious they discharged her


report which i think was not available back at the time your client first applied you'd have a difficult time showing the material changing conditions were enjoyed but as you know with the duration of time issues getting progressively worse and


they could discount the testimony of those two individuals and what do you argue it was that that those individuals could have committed the crimes and those individuals had the intent to murder and his client was just there just along for the ride and that he only intended to steal


and this is what mr cain told the police during the interrogation that was the best argument he could make because if the jury believe that mr cain didn't have the intent to kill then it had to find the special all of the special circumstance allegations not true


asked about the morning after the murders and what happened that morning mr kane made a statement that he was in there looking for money it's unclear if mr cain was speaking about the night of the murders or the morning after because he


at counsel table we do require days and so i have to have you speak into the microphone otherwise it won't record our just so that i know i mean are you are all the is everything acceptable


i kind of needed to hear his answer though so i'm sorry that i took you into overtime if that if my colleague didn't want me to but i it is a matter of not wanting to i think that he is answer here it's either a sanction or a cost if it were a sanction evident


immigration judge specifically identified the problems with that evidence and then essentially discount to them and gave them zero weight so it wasn't until that point that the immigration judge said if you have other


available for the immigration judge that he may need at the end of testimony again he would need to put the petition on notice and give him an opportunity to either explain why it's not available or to produce that evidence


can't be have a removal cancelled and the brother can't have his voluntary departure request honored what's there to adjudicate well we can adjudicate that finding a bad ball character can


his political activities although short lived were neither incredible nor were they in consequential and we believe that his experiences are well


the guidelines and we went through those guidelines in great detail and just as an aside i think it's straight plain statutory interpretation for a three does for a three says e p a you go regulate


environmental protections that are required i don't think that i think it's too narrow reading to say that if there isn't some economic evaluation of


the range and it raises the minimum of that range by twelve months ok then how do you get around a lien because around what the supreme court's decision in a lean because ilene held that any factor that has the effect of imposing a


view marijuana for medical purposes you have drug dealing well at a property in a city that the city didn't challenge in a forfeiture hearing simply put city does not have an interest in the property well the city doesn't want to stop the drug


on open property under the oakland's regulatory scheme which is in fact implementation of the state's medical marijuana videos their own property i'm sorry this isn't city property that they're operating correct that's


fide purchaser for value so to speak when it sought to tax those revenues because it knows that these are revenues from the sale of controlled substances so it's not innocent in terms of civil forfeiture law so


interest in tax revenues but the interest also in having safe streets and having healthy citizens health and welfare is clearly not it's more than a policy interest it's actually gives it standing


he suspected that richard branson had been sexually abused as a young child and said as much said that to trial


with respect to their eligibility for just one of status this that square with the argument that you're making just now that the two should be treated entirely differently the the so say case is distinguishable your honor because


have q d wise and zero seven zero nine and your order me said that he had difficulty obtaining a burger king from mexico and yet he clearly said that was a gift from his mother in law and that he was aware that she was aware that this was not his


secret and contract then child won so you are the appellant in that one i would mostly agree with one wrinkle that on the second


trademarks there's a disconnect between the court's reasoning and the actual injunctive order and the reason we're here to it has hurt my client you know the sherry all one to town in


we're not and here's why because the independent basis of an injunction on the lanham act versus contract still matters it still has ramifications it has ramifications for extraterritoriality you heard a large council


was valid but the law didn't acquire greater rights during the sell off period than it had during the main term of the contract just because it was in the sell off period doesn't mean that all the sudden it's it's open season and it could


failed to see any of the individual episodes of mistreatment as rising to the level of persecution in cumulation i believe we have board should have found there to be


to to continue to pall over those past twelve years having having thought that the application was done but his affidavit doesn't say he was calling in the tenth eleventh twelfth year is right


arizona supreme court but as judge kozinski pointed out the first thing he said is i do not find that he's talking about family history is a substantial mitigating factor


abuse i'm going to find that he that he grew up in a secure situation and i also am convinced that there is some demonstration of the hostile factors of posttraumatic stress disorder that's in the transcript july twentieth


deference to the board's complete definition you know after the matter of sorum decision clarified its position of its existing otherwise the definition already deferred


political in the political power structure and also a door between the time he gets dragged into the proceedings and the time of the hearing well your honor with respect to the no evidence comment i believe that was a searching of the state department


to be a crime of violence and in this particular case is supposed to be akin to eighteen us c sixteen a or b which is i think the federal counterpart to this particular crime and in order for


preserved its argument regarding the appropriate application of the criminal alien bar this court obviously the court's precedent holds that there is jurisdiction over more than just constitutional legal


not decide the particular serious crime issue and passes over that issue and says but you even if it is a particular serious crime you lose on the merits and nice circuit said you can review that that's not clear it has maybe suggested that in


state of the president in the ninth circuit so in this case it's a little variation of that the i j a says particular serious crime statutorily analogy of all and even if i was wrong about that you lose on the


and there is no no the stink in here between a conditional legal permanent resident and a legal permanent resident and this this issue was treated or ready by the third circuit in the case of


it was only when he told me that i will whine about having a business card and that


imposed on the probation or for their violation you asking us to do or should we be referring that to the new york state court of appeals your honor i believe that this court could do it based on the the established there's plenty of precedent i knowledge that this


dissent i suppose it's it if it's just a dissent but did the core take that into consideration i believe that the court certainly had before it counsel's arguments even in the reset and saying some some of


was to ensure that the regions exam was fairly and properly graded that's all that the car said the analysis requires here it's a very practical one there's no question he had to do for an improper and proper question is was he


writing that is correct however new york law right so on the way could be amended in the writing and you are claiming that it was amended nowhere claiming it was terminated and superseded by a separate agreement orally that both parties agree to that that is


always here mine i think that's my bell going off i would just wrap up by saying all of the grounds of the agency provided are supported by substantial evidence and i would ask the court to deny her petition thank you


a claim would survive the twenty of the sick twelve b six motion wouldn't that necessitate a conclusion in your favor i think it would your honor so some form of the now as this would be would


reply brief there is an organ that the government doesn't even address the address these arguments which which of course we do because we do know that if a home visit was sufficient then there would never be the need for any other kind of any other kind of search


new york state no after that when the motion was made to stay the new york state court action as far as i know that's when that motion went to judge but instead of judge as a new case or whatever it was not filed as a


revised the statute and they did so because they wanted to address you know the serious issue of someone like mr gonzales france who's lived in this country for twenty years always thought he was a u s citizen and he engaged in criminal


conduct but like any of us who are american citizens if we serve our crime then we are about we are allowed to rehabilitate ourselves thank you


it's we have to also take it into the context of the whole hearing itself and i know chief judge cashman just brought this up it had that juba talked about how if it's held standing alone without any other


usa commenced arbitration proceedings in london pursuant to its contract and has in fact already served claim submissions norwegian responded by asking seeking an injunction in the us courts the district court held only one hearing


extra contractual requirements so it was delayed certification was delayed because they added these extra contractual forms that's what she found this was still heavily negotiated agreement and it's seemed a little odd that the arbitrator


agreed to show that something is not reliable the person who did the test meets all the qualifications agreed and did it test that on its face would


to summation comments and it didn't think it was enough but how do you want us to look at now those two plus five going objected to comments and what i posited and i think it is the proper way to


somebody using his telephone number now for the first time because she's no longer available is posting ads with his phone number in them on back page in addition to that he was the one who was going to provide protection both at the


actually by my client but they were actually obtained from this woman who stole them from this man just


ski the second was the timing concerns with how fast that phone could be copying well there was some discrepancy in the evidence on that point you're on


they were going to miami within forty eight hours to set up a meeting with ski and the woman was required to maintain consistent contact with him and so the operational decision at


taped to the windshield so i mean maybe if they had looked at the door at the dashboard then at seven twenty one i mean at the if they had looked for the door jam then at seven twenty one that would have been a reasonable thing to do but


off from a party and contributor to film they never put in any legal authority whatsoever nothing even akin to what was marshall toward the ninth circuit nothing at all except for this website and the law


of jordan jefferson our plaintiffs just on just what he says he did nothing else but his version of the event so that's why we're here on this drug so that at least i and you are on the same page and i assume maybe my colleagues as


not arguable probable cause because if every one of those verses williams from the connecticut supreme court doesn't require more than well it is our scenario i think is different because we have to have two hundred fifty people and if


and meaning the two supervisors were on the first floor so we're really not arguing law it was clearly established they were not there when the an incident happened with mr jefferson and that's the only way we can do what they they still we claim have a right not to have to


and there was no evidence of significant dishonest or abusive conduct by the government the court should reject mr brown's latest claims as well i'll start by quickly pivoting to two specific points that my adversary brought up to this panel first


time that that payment was made it was computed based on certain the underlying factors and i'm sure his ability to pay at that time that you have sometimes


not clear well i think that the floor court was conducting an analysis of the statute to determine what was intended by that statute but yes if that the specific words for payment do not appear in the statute but the floor court goes to great pains to set out all the reasons


prosecution going that was a violation of the due process that was that was not to court the court didn't have those minutes and that was not sure i understand what is is there is a due process right to get grand jury minutes within some specific


claim the nine hundred eighty three a claim against detective vest as was false arrest or malicious prosecution or some made up claim and so be understandably the city's council in detective best has its counsel below wrote we


administrative functions so in that case the da does serve as the city policy making my argument is that on this point walker is no longer good law for primarily


documents if i decide to write an insert on facebook and my performing a quote employment activity writing if i have a business such as e bay and i sell one two three at what point is the line


partner yes that is true no question about it we think we've been great partners and create a lot of value and that's true too and they say i would point out to you that i don't think we said anything about ongoing


back for that for the appointment of these of these new federal employees if they were in fact witnesses your honor and i believe as the court indicated earlier there was no objection to that they did testify about how it works because it's hard to figure out it's very hard to


well again for several reasons one there is the rule thirty three already pending second this court's cases suggest that remained rather than twenty two fifty five is the better option where is


includes things like documents being back to you there was significant substantial evidence at trial that mr shaheen either a foreign nominee was in fact not recruited into the scheme until days before the shares were issued to him and then in fact there


and the video you're seeking is the redacted videotape that was admitted at trial is that correct yes and you've reviewed the redacted transcript of that video yes isn't the video largely a significant


it certified organic plant it certified the farm where i am reading your evidence about what the certifier say was that gee we made a mistake and we shouldn't have done it not that not that


summary judgment but on a motion to dismiss it it's just too early to allow abbott to make factual claims and not allow plaintiffs to present evidence they are in control of the evidence that you see career that is


the case and i started out asking because it's very that is it the case that a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs here necessarily moves the certification given by the u s d a it is absolutely the case


section sixty five ten paragraph a that's the section of the organic foods production act what that says is for a handling operation to be certified under this chapter so this is


conceding certification what are you what are you conceding or not conceding it's the language of the district court used the district court thought that there was no dispute here the district court noted in the hearing


clarified a little bit more on rebuttal but my assumption is the entire program does that or the way he was where some of his request was were taken he wanted to see a psychologist about his


found him removable for an aggravated felony do i understand you to be suggesting that no even the considered aggravated felony of what i'll call the cancellation step and that the


father and brother what am i looking at the english version is that a translation yes you're looking at a translation i believe and this this was information provided


religious affiliation was of longstanding maybe in generations and that and that what what provoked the threat to your or the end of the threat to your client was the the


in closing i would like to thank this subcommittee and the oversight and government reform committee for their action on h r twenty two i hope in the near future the house will be able to quickly move retiree health benefit legislation finally


industries is at minimum in the hundreds of thousands there are also mergers and bankruptcies budgets for all items in these industries very much including postal are under tremendous pressure even a small increase may have a significant adverse reaction


that fact as the economy comes back some of this mail will come back but sadly we don't think all of it will come back mailers cannot shoulder another rate increase as a matter of fact that


cash sooner rather than later and make the postal service again increasingly relevant in people's lives we have such great real estate facilities people all these assets are in place and yet i don't believe our


rule publicly available agencies should consult with industry just as they should consult with all stakeholders however private companies should not be given an unfair advantage over the people a rule is designed to protect the


investment and slow job growth i fear that actions by the cfpb that limit access to credit and increase its costs will only further damage a struggling economy the only clear thing about the cfpb in its current


government watchdog groups and with consumer advocates across the country i am pleased to report that our various initiatives on improving mortgage forms supervising nonbank credit businesses and setting up a


performance measures or goals significant proposals that affect obligations in the five to year period and their relationship to the current year and budget year or the budgetary effect of workload strategic planning capital planning or investment in information technology


declared illegal so i am trying to understand we all agree in this bodyh and this is a bipartisan issueh that our men and women should be protected and no home should be foreclosed on when they are overseas serving this


talked about congress and the regulatory agencies have been working for hyearshto try ms buerkle well excuse me again our time i watch my time clicking away do you intend to raise compliance costs on


congress has the authority and should have the authority to for instance hypothetically set the budget for your agency is that legislative micromanaging or is that oversight ms warren congressman i was trying to respond to your question and what i was trying to


congressman i think there is a real question about whether there has been adequate investigation in to what financial mister gowdy what have you done with respect to attorney general holder and the plus united states attorneys most of whom have been appointed by this


millions of americans are struggling this legislation calls on the federal workforce to take a prominent role in the process of leading the country out of our current fiscal crisis obviously a hiring freeze is


national association of postal supervisors we are recognized by the u s postal service as representing over thirty five thousand current and retired management employees of the postal service i am honored by your invitation to appear before you and to provide our


targeted facilities and operations are in urban areas and developed suburban communities many residents rely on their local post office as being within walking distance especially those who are elderly or without a car today many of our customers


thousands of carriers not to mention massive job losses it could mean salary cuts and layoffs for workers employed by businesses in the mailing community if five day delivery were implemented our evaluated compensation system which is often


if you were to set aside the five dollars fifty cents billion artificial financial burden to prepay future retiring health costs which congress imposed in the paea the post office actually had an


the postal service the most trusted federal agency in america in large part because of its dedicated and professional workforce the postal service is a vital infrastructure service that is not only an essential element of the country's financial