been litigated and would have impacted the case here you know we don't assume that all of these decisions are reasonable in this context and particularly so where


minutes before a hearing under two nineteen the circuit judge has the discretion to home deal with it appropriately including sanctions


are on one hand that he was unfit to be tried on the other hand that to testify at that trial i don't get that the same is true for his use of that titian here in the involuntary intoxication cut a context because the defendant count on the one hand claim


once pronto rights and that was a failure to protect the child from men who had not been background checked or who had not or who had been convicted of sex offenses when we look to the record that was on appeal the court did


regarding the request to admit


know what the application says is if we learn that any of the information on the sample patient is false or fraudulent we will ask that they learned it after the undisclosed driver was driving


said well i think he was just funny whatever that means and so those are the two comments i could come up with what you asked me the birthday party incident was of a birthday


discovery the judge got set up discovery granted he didn't comply as quickly as he should have the respect of discovery he was ordered in january of two thousand and fourteen to provide materials and he didn't provide them until i came into the case in


much greater experience credentials in treatment of the spine analysis of his finest compared to a primary care doctor who is not words certified and one time examiner dr a large who is not a surgeon so


medical records which they didn't hear so it wasn't until they took the deposition of the treating doctor who said hey that medical record is wrong i wasn't aware so i am their right to rely on that record is what you're saying your


mean that's something that arises out of a variation in symptoms that are being monitored by the i c u nurses that's what they're supposed to do obviously if something is pressing on your e order i would expect the bios


a but but even if even if you would said that they had that argument that that it is going more to like a secondary element of trying to figure out what was intended here well what did they pay


appraisal is done since december two of two thousand and sixteen when judge burberry's and it is order confirming the appraisal award so we ask that the circuit court of madison


on both the first amendment retaliation clane as well as the id claim which by the way if you note the argument that's presented to your honor's regarding the id


then it basically nullifies a portion of how the statute works or the rule works because that the context is that the defendant would render substantial systems the government would tell the court what the defendant did and then that in the court would make a determination about whether or


case as well record shows that he beat the child and contrary to the argument that you previously heard it the record shows that he beat the child once at least


drinking and he threatened the life of the infant child there but they're very different facts with regard to he keeps categorising as abused throughout the relationship but there's not a specific evidence of frequency and how often views occurred in this


speech that sanctions between commercial speech and noncommercial speech are content based in this court's case and patriotic veterans versus solar court found that they were anti robocall statute providing


communicating any type of speech we believe that that is covered and it is prohibited from being painted directly involved the second argument that is rejected by the gesture court is that there was selective enforcement in that the provision seemed


the meaning of this provision after it passed and so not only do we have a situation where literally they do the same thing in the watch trade provision and attempted to reference a industry definition that didn't exist which is why i


quickly but that's a great example of how the effect on supply and demand deceives these other traders who are trading through their their algorithms and the defendant makes a big deal in his reply brief about how you know deception of


good morning and may it please the court i guess i'll start by addressing sort of the outside the record concerns the judge wrote morass about my understanding is that ms has slipped in mr tony were brought back to wisconsin up based on violations of their


channels preceded by the terms wires cables and likely the interview the copyright office has found that those are all the paralegal lies mediums of transmission of limited availability well what would congress need to do


about what kind of expenses and what kind of bond interest would be implicated if there is a delay they discussed an eighteen month delay and talked about the fact that would result in sixty million dollars of bond interest travelers underwriters


that is the projected date of completion after using reasonable speed and materials yes because well number one you have to look at the language of the policy


presided over the hearing heard the testimony of the three witnesses and issued a thorough and thoughtful twenty five page report recommending the position be present in this report he made multiple outcome determinative credibility finding


dragged its feet in processing his disability issue that that's necessarily suppressed related he's on active status and then he's on reserve status and all the while this


certain and all that but he would have been aware of the people in charge of this decision and i just want to come back full circle little bit to reiterate the point that


sort that it would fall under domestic violence the push to shop all those could cause pain but they're not to the level that we say once you have three of those you can get fifteen years to life and that's sort of the distinction you have to look at it is it violent pain is


am me from doctor quite and this is all from two thousand and thirteen there was intervening the medical records interviewing surveillance intervening clinic conference a clinical review intervening medical documentation between that time the time something that shows that she's getting worse right some of it shows


what mr patel's investment objectives were the problem with that as the panel's pointed out is that the client investment objectives are mentioned throughout the country documents that very first paragraph of the client


main issue in this case is how do we determine which bills are fraudulent and which are and what the amount of the fraud is in cases like this where we're dealing


argument was raised in the district court i asked i said i didn't see that argument in your brief have i missed anything no you haven't you're ok i would say though that that based on the fact


papers show that you're entitle to judgment on the pleadings under rule twelve feet and i'm now dismissing the complaint giving judgment on the pleadings you think that's reversible error


and their pre booking facility with a person recognizing him noticing him and calling the ambulance ultimately concerning in addition we had a case here where the city one of the city defendants recognized and thought that he was in county custody they thought he was in both joint city and county custody


ankles and have slid to the floor and he can't sit up right that's exactly right your honor what is significant is that he arrived at eight forty two sergeant hale came into the room at eight forty three


not formally in custody he hasn't been processed but who's got the duty when they're when the you know once he walks through that door is the county the county has some responsibility well to answer the last part of the question first the county arranged for an


says you know they got her to the nurse got him to the nurse and so they kind of defer to the medical judgment of the nurse i'm just saying that doesn't get the nurses off the hook the nurses are entitled to qualified immunity and they


that the government is limited to twenty five percent of the retirement account now but let me ask you this do the retirement plans allow sayyid to receive periodic payments now or do they simply allow


of period to city that goes along this element of period estate it goes along with death earnings it requires these payments to be made over time it doesn't once the payment is made from employer from four point pension plans what have you


contacts and just one point about that we do not concede that the us contact analysis is the right analysis rule they first of all proceeded by way of the illinois citation process that's


to be a much stronger argument if you've accepted review pled guilty and accepted responsibility then maybe you get them in the minute and the twenty five years may the judge says hey i think the twenty five is enough and you know five years is a long time in


ones investigated by mccord's goal in two thousand and nine that could amount to five but we're talking about two incidents in june only one of which involved physical contact by years hiatus work nothing's


even if he later went on to say that it was appropriate that was an error on his part now the government argues that the expert testified both as a lay witness and as an expert witness and we didn't address that in our opening brief but simply because there was


no indication from the right heard that this individual was testifying as anything other than as an expert and there were no instructions to the jury as to that regard now case law tells us that when the


ratios you could determine what the threshold is for you know for that thing but of course you change those very few change some of those variables the number could change i don't think dr ten he didn't give a range of of of


that post traumatic stress disorder made him less dangerous than he was depicted or more treatable because one might think those would matter a lot to sentencing yes so


it is in fact a condition for which at this time there are no known treatments the d s m three four and five all indicate that


six months to reasonable inquiries now the question district didn't like that system and this district order two changes first it said the d v must give that card right away even if we can't verify who the person is and second the court said


on both sides read about turnout generally and turnout among african american and hispanic voters as well but then we also had a statistical analysis done by dr mccarty from princeton university who looked at the numbers and made


while it's true it's not it's not like the state has to build a record every time it makes a change when when there's an exemplary system election election system and a


anxiety anger and depression and the mitigation specialist said that mental health treatment quote would hopefully enable the defendant to overcome many of the feelings that have intermittently overwhelmed him those statements are far short of


had appeared for trial that day the witnesses were ready to trial prep had been completed and everyone else was set to go that consideration is one of the williams factors and i would refer to it as the convenience of the court which is


was persuaded time and again to continue with his appointed counsel the court then knew at trial that there was some sort of problem with mr fox's appointed counsel and from the record all we know really is that they were


the trial calendar is always a factor that's not what this court has said timing wise i would again cite this court to sinclair this as this court recently said and sinclair these things become more disruptive delays become more just the the closer you get to


you describe as well the fairly callous response to her complaints by personnel ran right and what duty do you think the personnel department breach


the did take into account the letter that mr adams written so in response to the initial brief the government file i'm filed the thirty five fifty three


practical one the officers who volunteered in the campaign were already driving the mayor elect around they knew him and of course this was this is going to be an interim


it were as soon as she said that defense counsel objection and the trial court says you got to listen to me on the line and then gives the instruction later in the instructions after the closing arguments so my way of thinking is that


opportunity for discovery and respect i don't think that there is any such a general rule in fact i think in the context of essentially forcing anti litigation and real litigation injunctions that are part of class action settlements such a


which is the premise that this is a policy that's contingent on interest rate behavior in the market here's a projection based upon rates as they are then it says you know this could change depending upon the rates so how


about giving the respondent and the state court notice of the substance of the claim and that occurred here and i think the best evidence of that is in the state's reply


a trademark that's the real test you can have all the lawyers talk you want but if consumers are confused they are viewed it as a trademark and if it's a trademark by statute it's not a fair use the statute


indigent and qualified for appointed counsel so in that context there is little likelihood that he's going to be able to or least until he demonstrates it so the trunk court never denied him anything and


if the patient dies in your hands you don't get paid but seems like an unusual insurance provision i'm just curious now you didn't read that i think my understanding is that there is a federal law that


called the officer who came in and left you know that correctly determining that there was nothing that he that officer should do why a month later they decided to invade her home and arrest her i think is


consolidation is for the panels or the panel the question is what is it one panel which is set up in response to an arbitration demand or is it four panels


an entirely different set of facts and circumstances from this case where the government has so many different ways made it very clear that it's all to make goal is to ensure that the cross remains up how do we know that because they twice said you can't spend federal funds to take it down


i can think of any cited cases your honor but not a day i was before i took the bar just in case but my my contention is i've once before after i filed in a federal court


you're saying well but we're not just talking about the strategic strategic decision as to whether going to come in as evidence we're talking about a strategic decision or non strategic decision of failure to raise at the very beginning that it was taken in violation of


there for both of them to use but i don't know that it was used specifically to assist in the investigation of the taser that it that he had to allow the prosecution to present evidence other than the timeline itself that they wouldn't have had


that's what we have here is it a certain point they realize one that glasser didn't have the money to the production didn't have the money and yet they continue to lend money to mr glasser based on what i'm not sure based on blasters assurances he must be very smooth talker


amounts and that is why he put the amount of ninety three fifty into the plan that was not a dispute at the time there what happens if and the county was just wrong had they told him


states and this is not a case for where the alien did not appear for his hearing because here was afraid of being deported that would have happened on august fifteenth two thousand the first time that the petition was required to


which they signed the california court of appeal said that you were affirming this particular judgment because the underlying case when all with all the way to judgment if there was a settlement however and you have a tortfeasor


of been filed the witness list had been filed and it was initially the pretrial conference was set for june the thirteenth at which time the court dismissed the for lack of prosecution for not having filed i was not the initial


and these buildings were part of the educational and the touristic and the recreational services that were offered by the state and so who owns the names is the state the state owns them by virtue


them i don't think so at the time parties understood black and white small screen poor quality now we understand klute color cable satellite flat


additional factor as she said she didn't disclose that someone has died and that's why she might get stronger and all of that going on why wasn't the trial court you know committed to make that even though i might not have


the case involving whether or not there is prejudiced from prosecutorial vouching is improper the weaker the evidence that is independent of the not tainted by the vouching the stronger showing of prejudice


instances where added upon to that he's saying we know she's telling the truth first of all if you say that here we know she's very well what he said was that her testimony had the ring of truth there wasn't it


what he said when she said she wanted to have a lawyer present when it was a question he said he was then i have no choice but to arrest you know this isn't some one of those i really think was going to be doing something


entitled to to expect of police to say ok you want a lawyer then let's go to an interview with a lawyer this is a fact that she was going to have a lawyer does not mean that he was not going to be able to question her and get her started this story that's what should have happened here but you


but i believe that once again under under this court's decision in hurstville personal versus pain the question of purpose for the delay separate in the sting from the purpose of timeliness and here we have these three significant events we have a defendant


and we have he's expressed they expressed recognition on june eleventh when he comes in and says i'll withdraw these motions if you only postpone the trial there is a clear indication of his true purpose what i would


purpose of delay discussion is all a post hoc discussion it never occurred at the time that the court made its ruling that the superior court judge made his ruling that


in august and he's right right off the back they wanted all these depositions they wanted all these things and then they did nothing i got into this case in late one nine hundred ninety seven two years later i said this case has been going on for


hazardous waste in determining that issue the ninth circuit considers that question in the context first of circ was broadly medial objectives one


they when they came to this recycler he took the product the battery broke it open through the casings to the side the casings contaminated the soil the casings had absolutely no use to that recycling and basically the recycler was taking


performed the single poor and that methodology is outdated and has been rejected by the profession it's bad science and that's what dr ward


woman was doing was more than just making a mistake this is where i come in because i thought we were on behalf of your client your honor i cannot sue her on behalf of him and the reason i cannot is i am a witness to what went on


again and again and i apologize continuing to go back to it but what they said was there would be a land and i claim if they simply repackaged it again if it wasn't out of the public domain it would be a copyright claim as well they were not intending to


procedures in essence the case went from it started off as seeking representation on behalf of twelve hundred sales agents by the end of the case the district court and got


we cover it now after five and a half years of work on this case mr decided still waiting for painting one for his heart an excellent work on this case the fundamental objective of the california state law


did not file a notice of appeal and they were content with that verdict and now they're trying to use another way to try to attack it without formally appealing it other


damages liability under state law i'd like to move on if as i may to the telecommunications act question we are here confronted with a statute to the silent with respect to damages and so what the supreme court has said we do in this type of


there was some discussion before about age that dropping out in effect is that corrected she is no longer in school well asia in fact is no longer at west mark nothing by the way that happens here will have any impact on that i understand that i just want to understand the context she


just to show why that has no bearing on the discrimination claim i'd like to point out that we entirely contest that suggestion we have evidence in this record again showing no statistical


instruction given on what you say your instruction says then it's hard to figure out what's wrong with the exception given let me say this i can't find anything language in the instruction given that talks about the conduct tests to be taken to further the duties of the director


application of the statute all right well if you take his complaint which probably we would all agree is not crystal clear as to what matches up with what yeah i'm not sure wasn't base of the contract


and harriet argonne and we need to be realistic about how how we view these children and it is important and it is the issue it's part of the issue that children should not be stigmatized in this bias against homosexual


subject to remediation through the administrative process it's clear that they have an opportunity to sue in federal court for retrospective damages what i am concerned about here because whatever we were to do in


that we got responses we got some production we did listen to my question did they produce that document in response to the request for production i know they'd raise it and they made a similar request of you i think it correct and we produce all documents we


error of law period and without the finding of what al gore could have paid in the master's opinion it leaves this door wide open the door wide open to assess the entire fine against bill's eighty's which in essence makes


can file a letter briefs not more than three pages as to the relevance of these cases because it's really not fair for us to be doing this kind of in a move with a moving target so within five within five days if you each


after a full trial on the merits which is what happened in the secure con case there were actually documents of before that the district judge but why i believe that you know showed the improper purpose the defendants in


they were a group of people who had access to the vault at the c p a and they were dipping into it and taking money by the thousands and when you totaled up by the


in assessing that court email you have to look at these other admissions he didn't know about the contracting and finally the five hundred thousand dollars contract issue with the police academy the counsel for the government open up with


they have a gun or not in any case i mean this constructive possession case was really like the analysis of an actual possession and in those cases this court has said that when you're not rarely you're


including without limitation voting the subordinated debt as it may deem necessary advisable it can it doesn't get any clearer than that your honor i would take the court back


decision one of the plaintiffs there did exactly what mattoo to mr de has not done she amended her complaint to include a specific statement that was an affirmation of fact contained in the label about eight point five percent defect


g and to brief tell them anally and you didn't do it what is the government's position on that well it comes position on that is exactly what we put in our brief you didn't use well it's not necessary you did not take a


state law at the time she was charged and so that to me is one distinct claim that's that's it's own false arrest she also wanted a false imprisonment charge which you know there are reasons for that and then he wanted before the unlawful


three criteria one is that its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right are you talking about generalized article three case and controversy standing as opposed to a statute which includes within it the ability to


sentence but you have to calculate the guideline sentence correctly the work and it's undisputed that in this family company family owned company mr and mrs


us down a rabbit hole it feels like i don't you know you keep saying look at the context look at the context but i got to say i don't know what context you can point me to that doesn't end up with the words except


a declaration that a fraud was the prog was involved the yeah pushing that our theory on fraud your honor was that these people could not maintain that cause of action because


anti injunction act is not some mere anachronism that could be evaded by creative pleading or procedural technicalities and the substance of it is are you trying to call into question the


question of choice of law it is certainly true as mr a staff said that this case has been litigated on the assumption that your jersey law applies and i do think that the better view is that choice of law can be waived which is to say


proposition that you could plead a fraudulent consumate claim in the abstract that was based purely on conduct my submission is simply that when you look at the fraudulent concealment claim that is pleated here it turns almost centrally on


issues it is true that this i mean mr cook has said that he agrees that this court and supreme court have never addressed or applied harmless error where there's a complete failure to comply with the


until i'm sorry the third party white house until they had tried to remove and have been remanded back down thank you


legalize it plaza go to direct benefit that's why plaza presumably signed the transfer agreement and needed the approval to do so there were there was no need for plaza plaza was the officer or the director


failed to comply with federal regulations governing removal proceedings and that he failed to advise farraday as to the availability of free legal services and also failed to explain the charges in the notice to appear in non technical language the immigration


rationale for finding that real children are harmed that more images come on the market the more that people that children who are in these pictures feel that their images of this crime never goes away as it's always out there being made


number of people were out there the claims rates what the full amount every person with a potential claim out there for all the damage came in and made a claim and it came in and i think i don't know the exact thirty million dollars or something like that but in practice the claims equaled


you if you are firm there's nothing in the settlement saying that they're eligible other then counsels representation and brief and oral argument which aren't on the website either there's no way anybody in that class knows to make a claim somebody gets a notice


look at one could easily infer that he meant i have no i haven't looked into these oh you wrote back and so what did he specifically say in that like that he didn't have tension to them or that he didn't answer them or


this obstruction was directed at a particular federal proceeding but does not have to show that the defendant was aware of that new it contemplated the predicted that it would anyone in the federal proceeding it was again and again what was the federal proceeding you have


that did not have to accept his testimony and he did it because his staff three finding that there were five strikes that were of purposeful discrimination indicates that he didn't say


i understand that and i find that persuasive what i don't what i really have a problem with is the i understand that the district court that the state court held that the waters


back when there are repeated violations the put the push back i think is you know is a sanctions against the prosecutor directly you know or you know that you know where but that but that and he put that in he said but that but that especially when when the claim


provided that the governor shall appoint with the consent and advice of the legislature three judicial nominees to the supreme court within ninety days of the appropriation of funds for the construction of the supreme court and as


one of the wagers may have had a similar kind of social service in the whole background and kids that was allowed to sit in without having that calculus you really can't get a handle on it and they're poor i'm not sure that helps that much to say that there were


don't need step two you lose and that's clearly wrong number two mr lay was talking about as evidence of discrimination that mr carpenter did not deny using individual strikes against african


competent how do you prove the the opposite of that is somehow he yes he's competent he can make a decision on his own and legally but he's he's too mentally ill in order to do


had a choice now you're in a no choice situation on your contract he just one last question i just want to see if i can flesh this out because the district court's rationale for saying this case back to the state court is that there is no federal


to weigh it you first have to find a specific mitigating factor and that's why this case is so different from buchanan as wife actually difference from the virginia code and it may be helpful to


as now by not only based upon my client's comings and goings from his mouth but he's your wife the people in the store that maybe that my best shot here that i can argue this is a reasonable doubt about whether he was there at the time what's wrong


judge below did in fact address that he did consider he did not ignore it as characterized by by mr jackson's counsel at this point time he did consider that within the panoply of all the motions before him but he did say that there would be


process of the derivation of the work but so that he could prove that it wasn't original design you didn't pursue your the original drawings and the work ups of domi at all oh yes you did your honor


the author didn't design a dress we're not saying that it but that's not relevant to this case because the question here is did she design those embroideries patterns and in every single instance she said no in fact she said the first time that


client and that writing has the reference to the copyrighted works so part of the public debt is it's there's not a clear contract here and you know to go to a conversation the two parties have in taiwan over coffee


consider it maybe it was done and target is saying that she's disabled why shouldn't we give the the call here to dr


of three is when she's home basically doing nothing and and not doing really anything whenever she does more activity she gets into trouble and that causes the pain level to to rise to much higher level she's taking gabaa penton


which is a nerve medication for nerve pain specifically and she's taking hydrocodone which is a relatively heavy duty pain medication so she is medicated to this date with respect to counsel suggestion that the jobs found by the ve


withdrawals which had to collect this money but in must be done within a constitutional basis so in our brains i point out if the departed questions aside to collect money only from african american images and not white in these that would be


was there damage beyond the work product and you can certainly interpret pennsylvania law in california law being consistent in instances where there is damages beyond the work product and i think the facts are undisputed here that there


evidence through the declarations to get a firm handle on the issue of infringement and he agreed with our experts testing any and quite frankly he also looked at my lens testing you know my lens testing he looked at all the images of the decorations and it's very


have a business interest here and a potential concern as a result of that but under medical unit there were credit to show an adverse legal interest and they're trying to show it in one of two ways first they're trying to say that


is whether or not the a hands under their century duties the duty to go out and get the medical that medical advances could come back favorably presuming that medical evidence may not come out very well but there's a reasonable possibility that it will come back to replace and


time doesn't necessarily mean that they're that that the rest of the performance called for won't occur but here performance would have been acceptance of the pre prepayment had that and that can


here in order for the prime aphasia case to be a real legal requirement for anticipation we submit to this court that there has to be an independent review by the board which never occurred here the board acted as a super examiner and


allocating trades are stored in the system memory and we believe the bads you know that's clear on its face in terms of the structure it's just the memory of that that clear that


para two percent and two percent or less and that does that help you in this case i mean i had understood that the problem in the case was that the accused process was using


substantially pure and make it substantially pure end product by starting with a substantially pure into medium and bear in mind the cases that i've read save that when you use the same word in different locations in a pattern it's presumed to have the same meaning unless


regulation that requires them to say or that would even encourage someone to say that four point seven does not apply to seven nine one three but it can apply to other cases that is a simple question for this court and i


practice that had been ongoing and that the declaration that was that show products on a single day was reflective of a pattern that occurred for years where your honor of first of all we have a declaration of evidence denying all


they said that these numbers of grey market sales were intolerable and then stick to turn around and say what our sales are in the same number they're just they're small they're minor they're not minor they should be equally as in power or so the emissions position is that it's


all right well i think we've used last of the opportunity for counsel have holes for all three parties who will take the appeal and write lies and we thank all three


the entire application as a filing date of one nine hundred ninety eight there was certainly the opportunity as if it's a priority date was in one nine hundred ninety five which is well after netscape it made it splash with its browser when would you say


some remained employed by the company and then it goes on to say except that certain covenants mentioning certain covenants here regarding non competition shall run for eighteen months after the execution of the consultant agreement in the first place as a matter of parsing


well i would say just pricing that that says this is what he's obligated to work on that's what he's not obligated to work on so it says the consulting agreement does not extend to work on new products so he doesn't have to work on new products what this doesn't say in this section two


a sixty eight where the court says that it refers to the cross or references that were specifically discussed by my colleague across one two and three concern a closely related drugs around


right the district court said based on crowd the school person would have to test and wouldn't be able to predict the outcome of the test in advance finally buyers


differentiated differentiation argument there was a specific disclaimer that claimed seven when you're talking about the code key means it's one where it's truly hands free operation and there's no way to reconcile that with a


goddess dependence it seems to me on the prior art yes so you have to look at the cues device and the patent and there are similarities


which is what it did in this case and not do you think they know that the parties disagree about the scope of either what the c i t did or even what it's authorized to do


common day example today which i think will bring it to life for you as an a t m machine if you go to an a t m machine today and you want to make a deposit you push a deposit number pad you put in the amount you want to deposit and that gets submitted into the system you are not


korean parent company of the u s sales subsidiaries and what happened was when the the parent company one of the korean predecessor parent company so its


to take steps to assure that those products are marked where is there a distinction between so to an o e m company customer as compared to a licensee for


the package smiles or frowns there will be forces applied to them and those forces will cause damage to the solder balls and that damage over various over repeated cycles will add up in the solder balls and will eventually lead to their failure and that's what this


does this regulation provide the legal basis for what the v a did in this case it found a clear and unmistakable error in one of its own decisions it acted sewage spawn to a to determine then you see you would like us to


in the little time i have left i'd like to direct the court's attention to the may two thousand and two decision which is of the joint pending page fifty eight and in the section number two service connection proposed dramatic stress disorder under analysis


respond to any inquiries by the v a for additional information or evidence concerning the application that was made for benefits and that's all you have to do that's all he has gotten better and i can write a letter and say


imposition of a penalty well is it fair to say that these two statutes read together or two statutes can be read together that the applicability of any penalty is determined to the


and they were organized by number of sides and had nothing to do with the manufacture so if you wanted a cheap succeeded di you go to this big yarn expensive twenty sided die and you go to a completely different bed


excess beyond what was that contract officer was authorized to pay and the answer could be either yes or no to either of those questions right and depending on congressional intent when you could have a case you certainly


testimony that you're referring to with respect to figure two invidious expert agreed that figure two does not show a layout but what nvidia's experts said was that figure two shows an architectural representation or


these proceedings and the words the board said that the day before its decision even though the army even though there was a significant breach and even though that breach was sufficient to give you a right


under us steel for when a patent prosecution bars approach to be applied to an attorney with access to the police and courts competitively sensitive information first we ask the court to hold that an attorney irrespective of his or her


for for determining that set up or would be appropriate what is the thank you for that the second part of the test is to determine on a case by case basis whether the competitive decision making attorney


that was qualified under paragraph four of the commerce still said in this case we can't use it they are not conducting any case by case evaluation of this one piece of data and every non market economy cases the supplying like a machine


illustrates the prior art that is at issue with regard to a particular path i mean


jury to resolve they weren't antithetical to her claim construction and if boston at this time thought the claim construction was deficient because it didn't say that a crest test had a marking


no protest that will determination which is exactly the jurisdictional prerequisite that's necessary for the c h p to enter to entertain jurisdiction in this case if you look at the actual claim at issue here that's on the record had page two fifty one it's


is welcome to the bar and thank you for your exceptional work this year and we hope to so used to there at the podium some time soon


before the claim of cause that maybe i don't you are not aware of there being any other such cases as well but i would submit that the difference between a registration limited by section two f and a registration that is not so limited is


veterans situation we know that in a situation but but typically the burden of proof is as it's sometimes described just as being the risk of non persuasion that's all it does other than that


citing his taxable income from one thousand nine hundred three in one thousand nine hundred four and saying that these facts establish that he was on the able to make his monthly mortgage payment but again the board has already considered the competing evidence that was presented on this issue it weighed that evidence and


actually read the evidence properly require the secretary to provide affirmative evidence that mr bruce kaye first of all collected in retained red secondly that mr bruce kaye had the apparent ability to make his monthly mortgage payment yet did not do


one piece and i think that it's really a shame connected to has to mean anything in that case based on their disclaimer based on the disclaimer that they did yes not in the ordinary course not in the course of


the interpretation of the claims that i put forward in the brief here i noted that in the specification


you know one of the first things that we quoted from the p s a it's a it's governed by the new york common law and under new york law a trust can't sue its own name it has to sue it has to have a


conceivable that the death could have occurred as early as ten am on saturday morning but in terms of the weight of the evidence and the persuasive power that militates in favor of a of an acquittal the fact that it's conceivable that it could


where the the the record shows that mr hopkins was deprived of a meaningful access to several guarantee is under the clock against california remedial plan as one


to the services that he needed in order to present his case to the floor but when i ask a question on just fundamentally as i read the complaint to the extent it is seemed like it was only constitutional claims you've raised an argument on appeal that that should be interpreted


here and no juror could find other than that he got all the accommodations your honor said it much more articulate than i did yes i would agree with that


every item as sort of was argued by opposing counsel it was if something was too heavy for him and what is clear from the record


said it's over twenty five pounds or more than thirty pounds that's it and that's not what what the analysis there's no restriction i guess is what i'm saying on the factors that can go into what is


involving this tax used not by that name of course but used to brecker analysis already so if that's correct why would it have to be done again only to be done again


direction and had under the direction and under the control of the principle this principle is also set forth in the restatement of trust section eight and in the restatement of agency section one hundred


that did not create an agency and so those are three cases from this court there are court there are cases from across the country and also from this court discuss this difference between agency and trustee and the key factor from these is


securities for or sorry was allegedly going to buy covered securities for for the fraudster itself so in trice the fact pattern your honor is is simply this the victims in


important this case because the percentages once you realize we weren't even dealing with the whole the whole class to begin with and now you look at a class that is expressly interstate and then you look at the analysis done by the plaintiff and their statistician


everything else was speculation and that sixty one percent did not account for not us citizenship and did not account for this larger class definition thank you ours thank you very much we appreciate all


told us he has told the court several times that that's not his reason for striking the juror and the supreme court has said that when a prosecutor states his reason he's got a standoff on it it doesn't matter if the court can see another reason that might hold up


immunity is inappropriate but if you know and if any authority that would permit us to do that if there's not an individualized breakdown of each officer to make that determination no i'm not aware of any authority well of beyond the three cases


the court found that paramedic could be held liable for deliberate indifference under the fourteenth amendment but in addition to that we have these two categories of cases the exception to the normal rule that you can't but there's no duty affirmative duty to provide medical care under the special


do well we could argue about that but which important is what the district court identified write that and then trying to think how i would if i were having to conduct this individualized analysis


motion the court didn't give you that and then nine months later you filed this motion right we did indeed meet the able to twenty two deadline and that your honor is hit the nail on the head there was a lot of compensable work that was


fact this is an unique situation because the officers were trying to move people out of the highway or close to the highway up the hill and move them away and so is there any evidence to suggest that


bankruptcy laws really state it's that's the issue of state law and i gather is there a dispute among the sides about what whether that's true knows the key is a factual question not a legal if the assignment became was prior to the judgement


he's nor would want to reserve his right to change his mind so he actually signed his name if you look at this in context what mr harkey was looking to do was to engage in judgment avoidance activities right


the lien you haven't convinced me not a fraudulent transfer you've got what appears to be a lying or tricky declaration declaration that's true but incorporates by reference a lie


send it back to the district court to rule on that portion of the motion for summary judgment that it preacher made it clear and i think that the facts that are presented to the court enables the score to to make a dyno decision based upon whether fair


applies in this case it was raised it was mentioned in the motion for summary judgment it was mentioned in the briefing and it wasn't really addressed by the plaintiff's counsel in the briefing either and i think that the facts weighed in favor of finding fair use in this case but


what what's important is that in delaware corporate law which is where the malone baloney versus brink case and it's progeny were decided that predominately has to do with corporate issues here we're not looking at a partnership issue partnership issue is a


delays and setting aside the fact that the records room closes at four pm even though complaints can be filed until midnight and still receive


ask you if i can because one of the m government interests you cite that are important is the budgetary constraints i believe you identify in your preferred right well well budgetary constraints are


one of the issues identified in the motion for summary judgment order is the issue of alternative channels of communication and to what extent those are implicated in this case those are the issues that come to mind from that war


appreciate your time as well you're very helpful arguments in this interesting case the matter is submitted


find the evidence to support of the proposition it's been documented in your client suffered from the repeated manifestation of six or more symptoms


between burlington and one step up there may be a temporal connect between the various events but there's never been any evidence of people sitting in a room one whether


make his add his ad libbed statement but that would have gone in he said the jury instructions into the jury room but that little comment that he had wouldn't have been included in the written instructions but you're out of it but the spoken instructions are certainly the


that well he answered when i was thinking about it most recently it seems to me that my current is different from the reason i was suggesting that is here we we exist all


where as the lawyers knew that a large number of the people who were being identified as general partners disputed that characterization in vega jones day represented that


involves the transfer of electronic messages such as e mails between users and again it's this common sense idea of transferring between users and not just you know uploading something to a static web site


testified that their opinion was that the only effect of the drugs was for was the placebo effect number one number two there were extensive this discussions of numerous placebo controlled trials


random controlled trials that were conducted there was dispute over whether they were valid or not but ultimately the testimony was that in both of those trials the products did not work any better than a placebo


disclose it so we know what we're writing and it's not unfair to ask them to disclose it which is why it's in the application and right below the application is language that makes it clear if you don't disclose the information you have it's not covered with the disclose or


competitor with another with another person some of the products and that person made a profit off of the selling of that product those damages would be you know roughly approximate to what the what the losses were for the other side of this it case is different because


money that was attributable to the profits of marley coffee the other point i'd like to make your honor is that mr hogg and statement that it was only after the litigation ensued that that they started selling and


movie first before you can offer declaratory really what i'm saying is that the declaratory relief that they have asked for which is about the movie can't happen until there


authority brought suit against them for some violation of their local ordinances later a landowner down the road might bring a claim because his dumping that hazardous substance into that water chilled his cattle well those are going to be two completely different


party capable of the same party prong of the capable of review analysis does not always work in idea cases for exactly the reason that's raised in this case this these issues arose when student was


so that the visit is forthcoming but this is a conflict of a different kind if you're apparently there is some variability in the administrative fee if your clients knew that


to say thank you very much


it was that you had your in your own or didn't sign onto it begin with right and that's why they had to stop it well well so it's hard for me to see where that violation as well but let's go back to the


policy requiring residents to provide a social security card or in the absence of a social security card a visa i ninety four and passport no other words it is a policy that requires proof of legal presence as a prerequisite for living in the


inclusive communities there is a complete failure to comply with rule twenty eight and this court has held previously that that constitutes a waiver of arguments are not set forth in the statement of issues what if this


that's really the dissenting view in a case that's not majority but i think that is exactly the majority view it one of the things that i better read differently but that dissenting opinion says just about what you just said right well what the court said in the majority


causalities the court talked about policy and statistics those are good and you have to have those you can't get out of course i don't think there was a policy in that well and that was one of the issues and that's the difference is that they don't have a policy and of course if you don't have you got


it's which of course the clubs like to refer to it constantly the ballet is not regularly provide me and a vent a program a show that


time at the city to separate employees approach her to say the korean kubiak the supervisor was causing these problems from a struthers quote doesn't like black people that's a quote from several different employees in the record mr oliver welfare and this journey i understand that said to mr others from the outset


memo it talks about the genes incident and it talks about other things such as not having city employees that are das she can't leave her gas she feels like she's more like a receptionist


correct statement of what i wanted to talk also just about the standard for review of jury instructions for a moment no the court is well familiar with it but it is a it is a heavy burden for gaskets jemison abuse of discretion standard trial courts


now even after the trial during the post trauma oceans the district court had an opportunity in a reflective moment to evaluate everything in context everything that happened at trial that you tally of the evidence


limitations to run don't they have a problem with holding meetings took place way back in the day so even if it was timely i could have told the action of


and here you are saying there would be a problem with filing the complaint then it just i mean usually one of the things that we get we currently is whether the complaint is the fish whether it has the a cause of


with respect to the extension of the lease subject to showing prejudice for your client in terms of the reason i argued that you didn't have to look at the harm is because santa performance should not even apply to


or her job properly if it's it seems kind of unfair to the trial court or say you know you can you have the evidence


for the specific purpose of overthrowing the government and they succeeded for a short time and right there after the leader of that group ordered them disband and while yes they're still what many of the reports


focus so much on credibility itself it's corroboration were always so required as to be expected that the threshold for protection under our sound statutes is at ten percent


where the supreme court's decision and scottie harris comes into play where you have tape evidence and the videotape evidence obviously doesn't lie doesn't forget it clearly shows exactly what happened on that particular


initially i'm sorry i don't entirely mean to co opt your argument but you might want to focus on that at least initially absolutely and you're correct that he focuses on just one of the components and that


of the bank payment world moldova there were multiple occasions on which the client payment world moldova directed victoria bank to pay somebody and that payment was


comes to northland of tells you write them again the j c is what you're dealing with you know to difference it's not a judgment not a final judgment eish loud knock on the says costs not a penalty and in that particular setting and here


that's something that first our position is that it is a penalty even though the clerk ordered it because the court's own clerks only acting at act after the judgment from the judge so you think anything that is entered after a


state a number of hours but let me let me turn to something further let's say we assume counter factually that the agreement demands compensation of twenty nine hours and no more twenty nine hours would


issue because they fully acknowledge that a individual could enforce the statute they're basically so we sued the wrong person it's a rule nineteen issue of anything we in fact asked below whether to be allowed to amend it that's what the district court concluded on that obviously the


defendants not only did peggy singletary say it but one of the other administrators who testified pamela street who was an administrator said that she had been hired by these defendants and mistreats sad


that would have had to have been made with a certain level of mens rea in order to lead to liability of the peanut damage statute and right sir under the punitive damages statute


it is critical that the plan itself or to obtain punitive damages against the company turned entirely on proving that the company's officers directors or managers acted with the requisite intent and yet they


tortfeasor a nurse who knowingly honshu slee and deliberately used an unlabeled syringe containing an unknown substance knowing that to do so would expose the plaintiff to harm as


jurisdiction no that's not true what the case is in this court has said repeatedly that a question of fact on motive does not rob the court of appeals of jurisdiction but you've got to assume that he's right i don't have to


don't know that your honor but the right did it but your honors the agency also did stress repeatedly that this was a man who had handed out their own gun and it was for a matter of hours on one occasion and did so


alcohol as soon as you go out of prison or yanking and he was a wild man yes absolutely that kind of defense is constitutionally protected in justice o'connor's controlling concurrence in simmons she explained that the defendant there had he


i have you had trials benatar i have been a trial you know how sort of maybe that's all coming out and being understood but since every question is objected to since there's a long discussion and then there's a ruling from the judge


perception of future danger in prison and the witness kept coming back to that or what i objected to presentation of it and that that was the principal cause of a lot of the back and forth during his


respect to each i'm essentially yes there are some nuances regarding whether or not as was compelled regarding the form of five big he there are some who would and then which one of the


talking about it was not here that is not here your honor because of the time that it steps in the shoes of the government is when they're directed in violation of state law not federal and that's


and home he believed he had supervisory authority over miss cooper according to the employer he didn't but i think for purposes of fifty six it becomes an issue effect it


time there was disparate impact that some applications reopened and other applications were not reopened and there's no way to know there's no standard for which applications can be open and which ones are not going to be opened and plaintiffs complaint specifically alleges


failure to make reasonable accommodations which presupposes you've adequately alleged disability which we have alleged that these plaintiffs require twenty four hour skilled nursing care for their survival and their health and their welfare


contracting in a contract between a prime minister when you had a proposal process when you then sit down and reduce those terms to an enforceable contract to incorporate by reference the proposal and so the judge here he looked


new assessment tool but takes a broader look at the biological health west virginia streams that in any way are you are what they told you know these are the states this bill these are the states priorities for its clean water


follow actual we're told we have to follow all the panels and the u s supreme court that's what we're told and that's what we do it don't meet with us individually and but to just have a hearing new make a determination they have been hearing we'll sit down and we look at our


those specific alleged infringements have been removed from from the from the website isn't there an ongoing concern of future violation in that they read in the complaint that there was a settlement agreement that i'm agreeing that was not complied with


section well to be sure there articulation of the constitutional source of authority they were invoking that have been clearer i would note that in congress's defense the case law didn't become quite so clear until later


usually committed them for use educational use in limited circumstances may be permitted by fair use but as you know even an educational institution can't make multiple copies of something and start handing them out willing nellie to the students that was handled in


recent years has relied on language and iris notice a terminations to her detriment and ask you about that number but it really doesn't help me at all without any context as to how many folks don't comply with the statue so what does that mean


and ends with the elements in the court when you look at their result the resulting in that does not have any ins ray in it in we've offered several good several published cases where death


consideration what would you be doing at this hearing presenting medical evidence to show that the medical conditions that he's been under have not been sufficient and also been in to in order to establish that his current mental state his


if the petitioners felt to be credible it can be sufficient and pass persecution is also can also be sufficient to prove asylum you don't need necessarily a well founded fear of future persecution if you


government has to characterize it like that in order to bolster its case when there's no basis for it and in the record how do you distinguish i think ash is distinguishable in numerous ways st of all mr van ice


he was not going to give a guideline sentance it's not as if the district court said that i'm not going to consider the guidelines on and i think that the case makes it clear that the court has to consider the guidelines in this case the district court considered that there were guidelines


be one claim against my client is that somehow it torturously interfered with this contract by i suppose making this forty five million dollars loan almost two years later and including in the loan


two thousand and seven returns that claims fraudulent refunds so we're not arguing that just because he was a member of this group means that he was competent we're saying that you can in considering his competence you must also consider the nature of the movement


observations in reaching the conclusion that no reasonable cause existed and the court's decision determination the dr misers opinion was not reliable and did not create reasonable cause was entirely proper if the court has no further questions


giants game you know every giants game you invited me into and there's an argument what was a full season or not well you only invited me to one so by definition would only be one they never made the argument that we did anything to inhibit them from fill


alleged sexuality that led them to consult dr phil which in september and october two thousand and seventeen after that mr dean commenced an action for divorce and in


testimony everything was submitted through a short memorandum and a reply and the the statement of facts in the trial and they at the proposed statement of fact that's an interesting argument but a different argument was that argument made to judge coat that


reference to jose or some other witness no statements nothing that could ever be termed as a rule twenty six statement nevertheless they were allowed to reopen cross which had been closed that


that is not in the statutory category of a dangerous instrument for example a car to run someone over if the core is not within the definition of a dangerous instrument then that takes it out of the definition that cannot be the distinction


wrong after two thousand they knew what was happening in a small what happened in two thousand and ten while my clients money which to win this thing and by that time they came out with a strategy they scheme to try to get my people out of this thing the record shows they were from twenty percent but


often they are simply reinstating the original amount of time somebody was sentenced to when somebody has been granted parole let out of their sentence early release revocation on the other


street corner making a larger hand movement and appeared agitated they pulled over to ask him if they could help him and they noticed that he was carrying a gun case that was marked gun guard and at that point he said to them i have a gun and one of the officers


degree in the court the law is very clear for police officer has credible evidence from a eyewitness or a victim that's sufficient to establish probable cause just turning a moment to this question of whether law


aliases dates of birth and has a serious criminal record responding to the court's questioning regarding his connections to north carolina the government submit those that are relevant to the court's consideration and


says that to cross the line from something where somebody may be doing something for a benefactor but with that we allow public officials to do or at least make it criminal into bribery


find that the money was given for the purpose of getting this vote and that it was accepted with the undertaking to make that vote


and what the language of the case is say the text of the statute says that the thing of value has to be in return for being in florence and that's not


not mutually exclusive the one provision sixty ninety two e deals with false misleading statements that is read in conjunction with sixty to ninety two g so a statement that has to comply with sixty to ninety two


is arguing that there are somehow or some sort of separate damages that are recoverable through the federal court action and therefore would not be foreclosed by the worker feldman doctrine and while he was


prior drug dealing or the sting robbery and what occurred in the crime hobbs robbery so certainly i don't believe that there was a modus operandi that was


premeditation if she didn't know those weapons were in there that is a and the evidence is clear to me that she did and that is a clearly wrong is finding she doesn't deserve the forty years that the guy who hammered mr klein does and and when


apartment and well beyond have suffered from her for it to be irrational and hostile behavior as well so how can it be that the actions that are being complained of are upon disability


in everyday usage it is kind of uniform i would submit that it is commonly understood as this court understands it as i think frankly everyone knows or understands about a felony means imprisonment for more than one year there are a


receipt and the transfer of those funds she didn't withdraw any of that money or the before or after or write checks against it there was nothing to suggest let alone establish beyond a reasonable doubt that miss already assy knew of the transactions


he simply took the money out of one of her pockets or one of her drawers and put it into one of our rather pockets and one of her other drawers it just it it's a really irrelevant whether she actually knew anything at all about the


fact that there were additional acts and i think that there's an important analogy here a contrast when you look at the guidelines just to be clear we're saying once a person with fifty thousand and it's foreseeable


in a motion to reconsider while wal mart made new arguments in its reply to which the plaintiff received received no opportunity to respond the court then dismissed changed his summary judgment decision


her to move forward with some of her retaliatory failure to rehire claims he then held that because there was no direct evidence admitted to by the recruiters that they had


talking and saying things that substantially undercut whether he was acting in good faith well but you could are the certainly that is an interpretation but there was other affirmative evidence that he acted in


what was presented with respect to the power phone that wire went up under the auspices of a jamaican authority and that paperwork was never presented in court so we don't know exactly how the power wiretap came about but but clearly there was there was enough to get


product because i'm going to be asking them how the heck do you have any idea what mercury is in the german cars if you don't require something about that but that's a different one the one we've been talking about is


trade or whatever the other term is of mercury or can they make a reasonable estimate on what the amount of mercury is would be two responses your honor i think over time that two


trying exercise is going to create some inequities with people who are inside and outside but doesn't that notion of a zone of contamination that is discernible from you measuring p f away and water levels around the superfund site at the


so that he would learn better the systems and it was to no avail that came out in his performance evaluation that he did not take advantage of those opportunities she had provided him he really didn't benefit from the more


injunction did issue b i got would it asked for b o t did not so no they they they did not prevail but even if they


service members position abroad needs to have the ability to implement a courts martial system that preserves military discipline for everybody subject a military jury how does the military function exception apply to dependence


court should hold differently in the context of i think ornette was actually a johnson it was it was a johnson with sam for it's up you know again i go back to sanford was sanford talked about johnson but sanford was a guidelines decision not an armed career criminal act


retroactively that the defendant can never challenge that sentence then because of the appeal waiver the government's position i don't think that's not necessarily the government's position because in this case the


substantial step which is a necessary element of an attempt a conviction that apparently there was no identification of them anything as a substantial step but if he admitted that what he what he did and if what he did is a


judge i got into this case late and i think that would be the better way i think the more straightforward for a for b argument if i could step back for one second and the st day of trial the district court actually ruled that mr crow


will in the wilson case the rights of the wilson case says the district court doesn't get to use three thousand five hundred and eighty five b to fashion a sentence directly what i'm saying is that judge could still nevertheless impose the sixty month sentence if in that section of the judgment commitment order


charged on related charges in the eastern district of new york is that a fair statement that is their statement you are he did state time for a for a murder the state case this is in the bronx county that the


years and i think that inference potential is a potential inference but i think it's rebutted by the sentencing transcript which reflects a clear understanding by the court that he was varying up words in adding the thirty six months to the


in the brief i do have copies if the court would like me to provide those to copy to counsel and to the court or the panel i have those copies but but nevertheless was not found until later the trial until after the


the product defect itself because otherwise you get this powerful evidence and in that case where the product recall was made two years after it started to be sold the manufacturer gets this huge benefit by trying to raise to be shielded by the commission's non


question about whether there was a here in allowing this testimony in connection with the two piece design in the year two thousand and six your honor we proposed to the c p s see a slight


regulation a says you don't have to go through new qualification tests to show the proficiency of the lighter to prevent operation by child if that doesn't change what section b says that if you're changing the design would


chicago versus morale is said that we know this statute is to just monitor gang activity but people aren't clear on what that really means but you know that case is you know doesn't deal with the problems was beach related to sex which


warning may please the court my name is look mcclaren and i'm here in behalf of the united states the supervisor release conditions imposed in this case should be affirmed for three reasons first the defendant has waived his ability to challenge these conditions by


tank indicating that the city of coming to end had jurisdiction over these benches and we litigated that issue and the judge determined that as as an underlying assumption that covington had control over


witness now joseph says quote cording to him your client told him your friend just got shot and robbed so mr joseph was compromised he lied repeatedly about the case he admitted on the stand that


a clearly established right is is fact specific that that to defer that determination for some period of time while there is discovery certainly i think that the


upon which the applicant relies in seeking approval of its abbreviate breviary an application in other words it is the f d a appointed quarterback nobody moves on the field the generics cannot move to change their label in tell the


to meet an objective reasonable new standard and i don't think that there's any by any stretch of the imagination mr whalen has sustained that burden on appeal here well made clear


not i mean it's not up to the defendant to provide the technology to present his defense so you you know you you've got it let the court know what you think it ok thank you very much thank you


happened what's gone on he testified at trial he remains dundon frightened and i guess that the two main themes to me are that the courts seem a little skeptical of this defense all right i guess you could imagine


prosecutors about whether we should premis our recommendation for defendants released based upon their desire to cooperate personally i've never done that now if says in here that he's done it twice and both times it's backfired in judgment i


relevance i mean if we go to the merits in that sense do we have to remain because martine with there were other issues as to which the district court found that mr berry was procedurally barred from raising those issues that we


which would have been rape or he provided assistance by blocking her in the kitchen by by burning her by basically breaking her down so that provided assistance for the rape that is the facilitation the jury chose the


independent of the abstract procedural question about martinez then why should they be considered as before us we took the position that clear statement in the reporting recommendation all the issues


you know i didn't i did not know until the jury comes out with a question that says may we may we find him guilty of robbery because his partner had in his hand a broken bottle and that's the first time anything came into the case at all


am and then convict him of shooting billet five pm each can't do that can you know i mean i would assume there probably wouldn't be allowed and why not it's because they don't have notice in the notices if you had the notice you might be able to make


the african american worker for whatever reason isn't going to laugh it off he takes this seriously that then turns what seems to be equal conduct into something based upon race that he and yes or no and you have any authority for that you


the fourth amendment is intended to protect against and in the dress the intentional misuse of power not the accidental effects of otherwise lawful government conduct that's important in this case of these facts because what happened here was clearly an accident


teenage child in the middle of a forty five mile per hour highway unwished in there for some time the teenager had put himself there but i mean let i'm just trying to understand the legal framework that we're dealing with here so normally in fourth amendment


injury made the finding that the government had not produced evidence to show that any specificity five years entered the environment if that is so and i believe it was there could not have been a


based on these conflicting statements and it's not just mr mcqueen who on the first day said it was consensual except for these two very specific acts i point blank said no i was very vocal i didn't want to do


thirty eight through four forty five have to do with mr healy's representations to other businesses what what the company could do what it would do for whatever essentially company that mr he was talking to it seems to change all the


believe that that there was no way they could meet there and the appeal actually was part of the terminations hearing because she was gone during the time the terminations caring would have been scheduled but when she returned


when they're in the throes of their serious illness or do you wait until the twelve weeks are up or however many days he had under his unique conditions for the f m l a well i submit that you would look at the time that the request was made


and of course they're all preserved could you address the most the strongest one i believe the strongest strongest issue and


defense is not absolute why does it why doesn't it analytically simpler if you just can see that the sept tenth statute although applicable in a


liverpool but i thought when i was asking a question earlier you seem to be acknowledging it was indirectly done no what i meant by that the history as we progressed through the rule is that congress has never been very clear in


case where two people one on this point was addressed in any way no one's ever looked at this language and how those ambiguities might mislead a district court or even properly done under in or in one group


me when when a person has been engaged in one question drug conduct that has been prevail in that particular area and then is on bail


gone but up until the time that we were talking about this twelve month window during the term of the contract and for twelve months thereafter we're dealing with just simply the customers that were transferred to integris by option energy and roughly how many about four


court in his rulings concluded that his of the government's failure to comply with his orders constituted bad faith but i made a note when counsel is speaking because he reflect he said that the the court had failed to enforce its


that it was a reasonable prosecution it just took a long time to get involved so so yes that is an example of when congress has specific authorized sanctions against the government there is no such


and that is that complicating factor of the condition of the green fireworks of the fireworks that have been along with red and orange fireworks subjected to more easter and to exposure that could risk the safety of people who


a seizure occurs when there's intentional interference in a way that would cause a reasonable person to submit when the metro defendants came to mr or take his house and removed him in handcuffs did not allow him to


on the spot determination and of the hundred dollar bill came out today a new one came out i don't know if somebody gave it to me whether i know it was real or false i don't know how to determine that i don't know how the reason why a correctional officer or police officer makes the determination on the scene that the


situation normally this would be quite legitimate to have people with a similar name and birthdate to investigate whether this is the same person why are the deal to jail normally that would be


case between a sub contractor and a general contractor and the fact that the analysis here has to begin at the subcontractor level and because of that that distinguishes this case from cincinnati


court my name is earl invented representing the appellant that will serve two minutes for rebuttal time the city of brentwood tennessee enacted an ordinance that imposes an absolute ban on the transfer of newspapers and other items to occupants of motor vehicles


contributor and its vendors for communicating its message the ordinance is an absolute ban without so much as a free speech zone used in other first amendment cases the burden of proving ample alternative means on the city of brentwood


would be the judge to handle it i'm going to let that go on here rather than have litigation that's within his discretion it's not an abuse of his discretion to do either of those two things either deny summary judgment or permit the dismissal


if you disrespect me i'm going to do something to you well i mean there's certainly reason to think that's true with regard to mr wells right and these are full fledged he's the younger it was he the young the original gangster


support probable cause but you are if you look at what underwood was but can and let me ask you happy to look at that but it uses agree or disagree that that statement that says the drug


there is no nexus between the acts that were taken and a specific crime and there was no proof that mr a cast the had the specific intent


i can't speak to whether the exact cases that were in existence in two thousand and whether that could have been made that argument could have been made in front of that court however that wasn't an issue that was considered by the right court so i don't think it's proper to rely on


just want to say your honor i respect what the court is saying but deference is an abdication in miller l the supreme court i mean we had fact finding from a state court finding that the prosecutors did not


other than he wanted a car which it seemed like he could have gotten regardless of whether it killed them then when the police before they were able to arrest him he tried to kill two police officers he also


which is a california case same sort of situation and i can go down to all the cases and i can recall and you know put on any mitigating evidence i don't think there's been a single court that hasn't found either you know a strict one a violation of strickland


his his one tear but also by judge's instructions so because this state has not come close to rebutting the presumption of prejudice in this case the only question i believe is


more porton thing of course is what your blood and study was being told and that is why the nature of the conduct itself is so prejudicial it's not necessarily what's being said but it's also the


substance abuse and alcohol why is it humanly impossible that a jury wouldn't look at that and say ok it's a chance encounter it started out contents consensual it went bad he freaked


comes in and the government did not make a motion the government didn't do anything how is there not doing anything equal a motion well at the sentencing hearing the


and that's what the court in this case gave the defendant with one hundred seventy two months sentence and the record in this case establishes that everyone agreed eight that the variance at least in part was based on her cooperation and


separate steps but this is just one step the problem with that argument is this every single time the government goes in to do a thirteen twenty six case a trial the government presents evidence usually an insane


and perhaps could have engendered sympathy for him that this mental illness of a delusional disorder impacted his thought process judgment and decision making such that when he's in a delusional state that he is divorced from reality those that


a discretionary determination we're weighing all of the factors and some some instant some aspects are weighed more differently that's something that we that we give


under reasonable a finding of fact yes as i read unreasonable if there's a reason to do with it it's not unreasonable why isn't that statement reason the reason that statement is not


right on the eve of oral argument in document one seventy five to say well no i really controverted things despite the complete lack of an attempt to address our fax numbers one through twenty five counsel then pointed back only to the things that we contend are the sum and substance of


that rule in the martinez context this whole discussion about application of the exception is meaningless because we're talking about this the state statutory right to counsel and the fact that under crump into vattel


counsels not ineffective for failing to raise that claim and i think that judge tom kind of gets to that a little bit in sex and versus cause and i mean he just jumped to the conclusion that the underlying ineffective assistance of counsel client trial counsel claim was


like to say one thing about i'm sorry i just want to make sure i understand what you're saying so these ten claims that are not i see claims you're just saying we should resolve those on the merits yes if you feel if you find that seven twenty


law enforcement what we're concerned about is the knowing and deliberate choice to flee law enforcement and defy our law enforcement order we are not concerned with how the individual drove that was the argument that justice kagan was making and the court said no you


as united states the very harm that my client is seeking to avoid would already have transpired but the council that's where i think i'm having the problem with your position in this case is that the supreme court has stressed that it must be an important interest an important


this is just what human beings should do cooperate and testify against their well i don't know what world that is but that's clearly a legal error and a basis for remained in the sense and so finally we asked under


allow the act to be done and the act that i know i wanted was to have a timely motion for reconsideration filed because filing and i'm timely one wasn't going to do them any good but why can't we read


evidence should not have been introduced either we also challenge the agner lay opinion evidence alan agood was also convicted testified based upon the few dozen closers he met as well as his own personal experience


say that because of this your honor i acknowledge that it's unique and i may be charitable to my to my position but the card said wish for the sentencing judge said that he found the guideline range did not adequately take into


three the nature of circumstances of the offense he deemed mr lloyd's argument that there was enough evidence to support a variance under way happened when in any of it i would


from them he benefited because the conference calls not only raised more money but the conference calls were also allowing technique they kept the victims from


talk about they were not all acting in concert that's what distinguishes the blitz in the boat or in the sunlight of sin mind of cases because in those cases everybody was in it i wouldn't be up here right now if they'd share their commissions on a national basis but they didn't this is about one


specter that i think that there was no reason just just because there were two prior hearings shouldn't dictate whether there would be a third we're just going to deny this third hearing because he had two


dealings with sam one so that shows they're on a different page and in order to be in a can but what about i'm fixated on this conversation that he had after he was contacted caught off guard by the press and then


over a barrel and was able to insist on onerous terms as aries put it precisely because of mr frenzies position in congress and precisely because of the relationship and the money that mr salmon owed renzi so we think that that is enough we


and if it's if it's you know treated as a swindle case which is if it's if you're not relying on the evidence it's not questioning and therefore no where or if you're treating it as a harmless error type of inquiry we think under any standard the evidence would be


have underpaid the government though they may decide not to prosecute you criminally but they'll at least ask for the money back so it's highly unusual that they didn't even ask for the money back but even that letter acknowledged that under the audit as it was conducted the money was overpaid


evidence in there for summary judgment on our side and at the state officials repeatedly told plantar that they could not do this and never told them to the contrary now planned parenthood says well we were told we could that's not in the record you're free to develop that


might briefly address a couple of concerns raise with counsel's argument i believe that the language spoken your honor was jobby and there was discussion


medical or whatever sometimes referred to as medication abortions which would allow his patients to complete the abortion in their own homes in a manner


there are no doctors providing medical abortions and ben county one doctor myself has asked to and no doctors are providing that is in the record of abortions second trimester or first


people that they're pointed toward at least until it's known that the statute is unconstitutional the doctors and the women are not the whole will have these statutes pointed toward their


despite any confusion or disagreement between the parties over whether to apply a facial attack standard or a factual attack standard to best motion to dismiss the state's position well the district court into this court has been pretty


offered on an undifferentiated basis to the public or substantial potentially the language definition that's correct your honor and what and what the district court found is that that was sufficient to satisfy the formal requirements of the complaint and therefore


these frequencies were supposed to be used for private for commercial service not for private but what they ignore is that the license that was issued by the f c c was


to make sense of fifteen zero three and to bring in perjury within it this court in the thomas case recognized that you then have to import the concept of materiality which to reality it was recognized is not in the statute why didn't we put it in there because you


counsel i'm still a little unclear as to your response to opposing counsel's argument that the information did not charge the defendant with


the opposition is the record shows that they did nothing to cheat child will can probe them repeatedly when did you know what you know when did you find out there was detain at the outset which was a woman wasn't he a judge curio the


extrapolate the population of the various fish species me to me that's sort of a classic scientific debate over what is the best available scientific evidence to inform the discussion and apparently you know fish are


court has left pleas in place and allowed the defendant to appeal his sentence so in other words if the defendant did not understand his sentence appeal waiver it would just be severed and he would be allowed to pursue an appeal of


three the one point one that's a valid basis to make that statement a context where mistaken for sure and that's what i said this is this is this is a situation where every man is probably you know certainly the government wouldn't object and we


reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the jury in other words could the false testimony here the hearing testimony have made a difference in the jury's


that would be they would have to be one of a block of similarly situated participants in that committee in order to further for decisional power to redound to them


in his way outside his control that stopped him from filing a timely twenty two fifty five and under that test which is all that is before the court today and all that should be looked at is the factors that mr rice is simply not met that


term of supervised release on the defendant in this case the second thing second point that i would like to make in response goes to judge garlands question i would like to point the court to the rock case one of the cases cited in our brief in that case like in this case there was a long


promise you can agree that ineffective assistance at a twenty to fifty five or seeing is so hard


well i also want to discuss briefly that there is no distinction between primary and secondary measures for the purposes of the s and s analysis as the commissioners who are


and this was within the scope of the e p a s requests for comments and it is arbitrary to say that these annual requirements without considering the effect


case that congress quote did not personally with the purposes of increased renewable fuel generation at all costs finally the statute itself refutes refutes and b d s policy argument one stated purpose of the artist


that the parties are required to provide adequate notification of the general substance of the clerk complaint and so we believe that what is in the july notice letter into the december notice letter the july notice letter was final


as far back as making forty one the u s supreme court noted that the concept of medication damages in national labor relations board cases involves a healthy policy of promoting production and employment you know one of the cases


first of all they weren't mats in the v or a sentence and second of all the waiver was never mentioned a defendant can he do that yes but the but that's but the law is that it has to be done at the oral


this shows up on the written judgment even on even on no abuse of discretion standard however appellant raises no prejudice no raise no argument of prejudice resulting from


specifically with respect to our challenge to the biological opinion which is that the no jeopardy finding does not rationally flow from the from the facts from the effects of the action and the assessment


issues arising from the circumstance that fidelity controlled the switch because it still comes down to i think that's where it still comes down to the way to identify the circuits regardless of who's your or


other independent grounds of knowledge here we have mr pieces constructive knowledge of the vile the condition and we also have constructive knowledge on the basis of inadequate safe so if if shock he should have now


two to distribute bootleg gasoline and avoid taxes is actually those that are much more closely related to the then the objectives in this case and in the market case was that was a deal where


statutory index leaves the court to to be one point one but what he leaves out and this is crucial and the government didn't have the opportunity to respond to this because he didn't wave this r r she did waive this argument opening brief to


be one point one has a cross reference section and that cross reference section c three under that guidelines applies to this case and that c three and two b one point one


sixty nine twelve a and that just does not apply to this first initial determination of review and then potential revision sixty nine twelve a says quote prescribe it the minister is authorized to prescribe it


explanation for why it should be in the thirty four bucket as opposed to the thirty three and i think and one thing that really i think wasn't a big issue in this case is is requirements contracts there was a lot of discussion of


it's everywhere but you know if you're willing to go to some extreme stick keep the money yourself for shareholders then you know you don't credit the revenues and when energy is always done with joint


was ten dollars doubt in my example ten dollars so they only gave back the revenue credit and this was a matter in opinion five o five we were fighting that we were saying wait a minute they need to take responsibility for the


by the band with the just middle and as and we had the numbers in our brief in the compliance filing all of the other operating companies received millions of dollars in some cases tens of millions of dollars no one had to cut a check to entergy arkansas


where we disagree is that the question so what the commission did was come up with a simple remedy but the question is did that simple remedy to get the other if you


look at one of the factors is the need for power certainly that is relevant the applicant's need for power and if they're selling into the market that equates into sort of the real estate need for power and this statute is pretty broad right


a case about whether this particular course was mistreated i think the secretary certainly has that power in to the extent that the claims here are ones about whether but i mean you have you have regulations in


category of rules that we excuse preservation weeks use failure to preserve to decide and that was an appointment is cause issue but we did something


in which case you've solved you've solved the removal concern but you basically overruled humphrey's executor


performance appraisals and it was the case in particular particular right at the twentieth that says she was performing the very same items that they now say good morning to her firing in a fully successful manner and then the next


then people should be able to discover it through reverse engineering a second question that gets at that last part part of the question i remember that last i guess about perfect technique technically they didn't technically the words the words i did i just read those last two questions


conceivable in the reason i say that is because it is unpredictable the exact consequence or is all the killer application of force and it may be that particular application of force ninety nine thousand times already about nine hundred ninety nine


district court made a mistake because the reason the trial was moved back is that the government having produced the translations of the documents intended to use in its case in chief that's still hadn't happened when the deposition took place mr


we know that had he been asked before he was removed got to stay with some kind of support from the government or even without any support from the government if you were invited to stay


from the transcript he was asked would you look to see if these these contracts existed he says no basically at the end of bankruptcy case such as this one when i'm i'm required to close down the


that using the air missions factors where you actually do a calculation but we have you know we know that each vent provides point five to one point five cubic feet per meter and you know so we have twenty events through that view


along those lines also but several problems with their rationale first what they did here in contrast of course what they didn't two thousand and thirteen order where they said that section to twenty five's


if they thought there was a realistic prospect of that they would have tried to drive towards efficiency in the long term the fundamental problem with their system is there is nothing in it that drives towards officials in a long term well they have a four year


functional equivalency as compliance with mandatory minimum you're saying let's let's throw away then a little nugget here where we look at it from the consumer's perspective and say they'd like to have choice well i'd also like to have broadband on equipment they can afford but she refused to look at it then so isn't there