that these were benefits i could not be cancelled they were denied any access to the record and all they were told is in a letter from counsel there's no record before here other than in the record here there was no record before the district court other than letters from counsel that said there were no contributions


but it certainly has the potential if it had been asserted back when it was first you know back close in time to the time the contract was negotiated these kinds of claims absolutely can undermine the collective bargaining relationship and


all of those go to the merits because either those rules have satisfied the problem in which case it's a class wide conclusion nothing more is needed or they haven't satisfied the problem in which case there needs to be a


and the there there are conditions that need remedy and that the fact finder could conceivably find differently in either direction that's correct my only bubbles i'm not sure if it's why that matters you


good afternoon your owners lindsay murphy on behalf of the attorney general your honour's the court reviews the agency's decision to deny protection from illegal on a substantial evidence standard here in the evidence indicates that the jamaican government did take


relating to the district courts awards of costs i must say i'm rather puzzled by the lawyers fees and damages in as much as understanding is the great divide between


five years which is generally on on most cases when making a facial objection on its face that has not been made in the st circuit but in all candor has been made in three others circuits


misread the burden of proof that's require that the government is required to meet and and i also believe that the various factors to be considered family ties business ties property ties and anything else that's relevant to the


inquiring about are irrelevant because he had no burden of proof whatsoever now no your honor but i think that's burdens event what you please go back and absent my question you put


into the united states well you don't need a reaction permit unless you're out of the country for more than one year he never intended to be out of the country for more than one year as evidenced by the every the fact that every year he came back to the united states


we get into the issue where the management are so confused by the bonus program in the terms of it that they tell their team they're still eligible for this bonus and the team needs those expectations


led to the confusion you have this management team actually look packard who says we need to change this plan it's tedious hire additional action it will not follow systematic


evidence that was laid out in the record at this change of plea hearing there's only one set of facts that we so i don't see how you could prosecute twice on that single set of facts well i think the point is that since we don't know what the


distribution there else should we draw my st of all i don't believe that we know how much money they had in total we only know how much money of the market money so that there's been any number of reasons why he


your honor that judge lynch that her lawyer jennifer roberts sent the letters directly to wilmington saying that she challenged that the liberty of the mortgage and then it was there after the jennifer roberts luna's attorney


you said it said the guidelines calculation and that guideline range of it was three one hundred and twenty four thousand three hundred and twenty four months of one hundred and five that played in consideration because an


included in there the only thing this with the only thing the don't be only an item then it is is is they're saying is this is a gap you know it's a standard guarantee and it's the obligations of the network


charged with any crime there was no th amendment right to counsel mr mom he was not in custody and he was not even being interrogated at the time of the consent and even if this was the


defendant is gay and are they capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict but it didn't specifically use the word bias but when you take the jury proceedings what you're proceedings as a whole and how the judge to let me just ask you this


conversations that occurred which themselves are somewhat ambiguous on that score so even if they are not to support the conviction i guess there is the question of whether or not there are just to defeat the right that an instruction for


they'll call to your attention is a two thousand and five letter that was sent to the illinois lottery about a pending bill and the only legislature and that you know that letter cited a few different statutes not just the wire act it was passed before huge ripper generally


evidence that any c c was saying hey use fake patient names that wasn't the evidence in the case and so enmeshed in the question is a design to to drill down on that issue but that was not the case any since he did not think that they needed


that application which is our a seven hundred and seventy five there is a section that says i fully understand and agree that any section left in some sleep on this application and then there are other factors


qualifications or training he spoke about his interest amid alternately we're talking about two people explaining their their their experience and in the selection committees view apparently mr milky and it did that


intent to murder and under the bianco elements of joint venture specific shared intent was not required a person could be convicted based on knowledge of the principals intent along and so could you stay


statement i have no idea where mr taylor was when he made those calls early in the morning of this day nobody does except for the defendant and then the next one was no one witness in this case puts the defendant martha lang's house not one


the street yes so that girl ricky and girl ed yes both encompass that yes but then some of the examples you give are a person going into a private car dealership so i'm just trying to get a


and i would just and and i would just say your honour's complaint itself the nuisance claim has misrepresentation claims in it but they claim there's a design defect a strict liability that oil and gas itself is defective


from that standpoint the court's absolutely correct but i do think the severity of this information which didn't come from the child the child and never mentioned it during her testimony and


motion i would agree that although the motion focuses on his deficiency of the evidence it does go to sufficiency of the evidence not only as to causation but also to damages and if you read that motion in conjunction with


record the jury found that the defendants were negligent and were the cause for the brain injury caused to that child and that's why i think i think he


the court corey eichorn on behalf of middling credit management inc i'm just to jump in the judge k out is a question mr dell by relative to the gateway issue just thompson recently authored an opinion


agreement in the model by no case said said any purchaser and there's a signs in agents this one doesn't say that it says forcibly so they they they just point it to the sale scotch act that


case the court does conclude that there may be instances even with respect to real property where both repair remediation costs and decreased property value may be recoverable again it being a factual determination for the purposes of


recognizes this form of damage for rd property damage claims i would also suggest that with respect to the premium issue the ability or the need to pay a rd party


this man that mr graham of course also manipulated i also do not think it's a case that she went back to prostitution after the relationship ended at least at the time she testified in the grand jury she talked about when she finally escaped from him at the end of


level of plutonium exposure when you look at it to be any ology there is no statistically significant excess of either kidney cancer or stomach acid from from plutonium it just isn't there as the hypothyroidism he said it was absolutely not


same opinion it does not place any restrictions or limitations on the use of the funds or the content of the push offerings so i think it's quite clear if you look at the main officials have done in


discrimination on the basis of religion and injunction preventing that sort of discrimination will alleviate our clients harm therefore i ask that you would use the district court's judgment and remanded case


that asking the panel to do is to awarded damages under chapter ninety three when seven thousand and sixty that are over two hundred times the amount that she was entitled to by virtue of her toward settlements and her and the


have to say that the b a a is a matter of laws compelled in every ordinary kidnapping case to find persecution on account of family member ship knowing someone steal some of kidnaps a child or


before he issued his decision and then again in his decision the st cites testimony of the petitioner that he was shot because we we refused to pay protection to the police


those justices who in the luger case embraced a reading of section one hundred and eighty three days under color of state law a clause that was broad enough to him to reach private parties whose state action consisted simply of invoking


exactly what the court has said that was exactly and equally true in the case of all of the procedural to process cases that came before the court including why it and live here and then the early generation of appellate court decisions like


it's not much of a priority to them that this guy is facing death because of the violation of our court or you know i i'm you know i get i'm sorry your honor i didn't mean to leave that impression i think you know this is something that we


on what's known as the disproportionate patient percentage which is the sum of two fractions the medicaid fraction which is an issue here and the medicare s s i faxed in which gives it the


something you just said i want to just make sure he understands about the puerto rico hospitals can treat s s i eligible you're talking about visitors certainly your honor yes and that gets captured in the reporting from the hospital i thought


categorical test but we don't think that works it instead it's going to be the slow slog of going through issue by issue as applied if there are what i hear you basically saying is forget about that there's a categorical


charge in the indictment some order of detention or arrest warrant now could be the summons or something like that but it wouldn't just be the indictment alone because there's still the documentary requirement of an arrest warrant for a detention


medical records why they were spending so much time on it and his attorneys the plaintiff's attorneys made a representation to the court that i was because that was evidence that was being offered to the can or are affirmative defense a statute of


me if you're not trying to answer my question ok ok and i just want to understand what the answer is if we started this far on the rd surgery for diligence for this what's


first i think that there should not be much dispute that the tapes that were made with mr smith everybody knew that if there were criminal prosecution somehow those tapes would


the disallowed signatures were added in that the third position would still feel to meet the minimum them or that is what the district court concluded


can return to half of what he previously did stuff for and so the first remedy i would ask is that the court send this case back with instructions to the l j that you can't


she had a reasonable basis for their belief that would not be an abuse of the privilege and on that basis we would not be able to proceed we also argue that there is an improper motive behind mr


not necessarily a crime but i don't understand why there isn't reasonable suspicion to believe that the car coming towards you that has no license plate driving in california reasonably suspect that that's a california car well


product of the federal government congress provided for b i e of oversight congress certainly could have set up its own foreclosure system in rules but congress provided for oversight and where they provided for it is in the approval process you can't consent of the big guy is required for


bush makes i think you misspoke you said that was from wetzel that's actually from martin the wetzel case says that the issue is whether the benefits have been actually denied or the insured have reason to know the claim of


would have an easier time with the basic obstacle to us is that you know at bottom with respect to see crest we're trying to collaterally attack a judgment to which we are strangers and although i


may please the court fred rally jr for the government the district court suppressed evidence found after federal agents arrested the defendant for participating in the stolen treasury check transaction the court concluded that the agent's lack of probable


that that if let's just say if i mean obviously making a presentation case is not that hard and if if if let's just say if we assume i think is primus facia case was ok he gets terminated and then


wilderness which is an unincorporated unincorporated association so to the extent that there was a prosecutor tauriel judgment to limit certain individuals in any event to travel really


assistant u s attorney to speak for the government that had to be done by you folks back at main justice in washington d c so there's a big difference here and that's why i'm asking the question there's a rationale conceivable


granted relief on two claims first the district court found a violation of brady brady versus maryland because the prosecution allegedly failed to disclose the whereabouts of mr smith and


error especially into a situation where there was a violation the constitution this court's pressed in fl government says the government has the obligation the duty or the burden i should say to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they still would have gotten a conviction


find that there must be compatibility which is what the hearing examiner said did not exist and justified denial of the application here so what we have here at


colorado river applies primarily because there are exceptional circumstances here of the fact that we have a state court decision on the of the issues that if the federal


try something on that program were allows you to pay a lesser amount and it twenty five years and he's not working full time and you know in terms of it's friday and i've been here a week and i'm like really tired and


sold because there were two other large pre confirmation payments made we also know that at the time of confirmation there were payments made to both simplot and i ca and we also know that throughout


you have that we could reverse this district court on this record where there was nine months that passed waiting nothing happened and accordingly


yes order this mysterious miss and complaint you see at the top of the title order dismissing section one thirty three in federal procedure there doesn't get your final judgment the action has to be dismissed so i'm just wondering


this delay delay the resolution of the case it did not in fact the defendants have never pointed out what they said they were stopped from doing what anybody was stopped from doing because of this delay and in


the reasonable inference would be that this prosecutor was saying he didn't lie to you folks and i'm going to have to stand up and make that argument so that this judge though i wouldn't be able to tell you if i part i'm lying either for things you've heard or things i know he's not going to get his


her in contacted her regarding a return to work that he never said anything about not receiving the letter that determination letter that they had sent to house and then later in a


told him about mr smith the vernon smith that he had just run the records for and at this time officer ratliff and defendant smith are outside the vehicle outside the patrol unit between the patrol unit and the camaro


raising and that if a dollar is given that doesn't mean the dollars in any sense going to go directly to the charity and if they have questions they'll ask and so the court recognized that in order to protect the first amendment rights the speech rights of both the charities and the


thomas he said well the instruction was right out of madigan in a reply brief we pointed out that the government seems to be saying that that in in some ways expanded their ability to prosecute for fraud in their area that might previously have been protected by the


your subordinate is violating the constitution or correctly said that there was no knowledge of the part you naturally and then the court said that he certainly wasn't deliberately indifferent to the any of the issues raised by the plaintiff he was properly trained


hundred three claimed based upon false evidence and that's simply not the test laid out by this court what this court said was that a reasonable officer knew or should have known and in


are you're asking me i'm not sure how i can answer that i can just i can just speak to the record and and it is completely devoid of any constructive knowledge on their part that's been identified


they should have been paid to montana people had no bearing on the decision on jurisdiction and i understood your opposing counsel position he was essentially arguing that the thrust of his claim is breach of


armstrong one manufacture the rifles two to ship them to decode arms for purchase at forty percent below the price that isn't the real the real essence of your case here they stole our idea to


should act with the believe that mr house is sharing with american express what he knows about him for space during his service as a director including at the time an american express the size of the cell i think every board of directors should assume that that the that their


was other evidence that perhaps she had recovered somewhat within five days but you really suggest she was in a coma for ten days when the medical records clearly reflect that she was transferred from the


how does that affect your credibility in your ability to remember i mean because obviously you've got the one thing that you get if you get deep and credibility findings for being inconsistent if your alcoholism affects your ability to remember things


every conceivable issue we also have that you have the problem as it was an accidental there is that obviously and imposing sanctions to might say someone accidentally deleted one file that would be different then


declaration along with a multi page attachment with regard to services rendered was files this for the district court on the afternoon of the oral argument we walked into that courtroom we had no idea what they were asking for sixty five thousand dollars for how they


of sounds like general damages the contract asked a doctor to look to the a m a guidelines for the assessment of permanent impairment apply a formula to come up with a number and you get a percentage of the maximum


driver who is just allowed the violation of oregon law sat next to the person who's driving the vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public and now if you ask us to tell us that we're required to leave the vehicle in their hands when the officers judgment on that occasion


defendants and i set out for the jury to make a specific finding as to each you know an object and i remember that specifically because the eight forty one a one object carries a ten year mandatory minimum


same thing you've got a client here and i can't figure out how your client's interests are being furthered by a position that seems to say you've got to make my client do something rather than give the pervasion officer the possibility of saying you don't have to do it well your honor the problem is


an error when it's not even an error so i i think where it comes up is supposed none of these ten are in and of themselves the sufficient magnitude to show in effect of the system little there's forty of


want to associate myself with them i'm heterosexual so i join into that club and i can they keep me out because i'm heterosexual on campus frankly at this point i'm not positive since the


and under your theory of what the lawyer is it would seem that until they talk with an individual and tell that particular individual you


container things of that nature showing that the confusion of the public was very down doing it in some very clear respects to the detriment of creamery these are infringing uses i'm sorry that's


counsel available and there is nothing there's no case law that we have seen to suggest that someone can be the chairman and initiate a claim later the remaining an owner of the company


next question is is the governments of indonesia unable or unwilling to just stop that violence and that's a key to me to tell me specifically in their record that would be the substantial evidence of course


think even if that if that were true that there was sufficient evidence in front of the court to make a determination on the less stringent standards standard that these granting asylum application it's not find that withholding of removal as that is a more stringent standard


whatever he may want to say


legal principles here are really understood and agency that has discretion over a condition of employment that isn't controlled by law has to bargain under title five


concerning the jurisdiction of the texas court under section sixty three thirty d one of the internal revenue code that section governs the jurisdiction of the courts to hear appeals from the terminations


this action was being upheld and basically it will make sense to go to one court since the appeal officer heard all three cases all three appeals f the same time considered the


that told petitioner what he thought that was and certainly there was plenty of reason to believe are for the immigration judge not to know what to believe i mean the record we have the petitioner with four different names various points in time we have an ins


the immigration judge in this case whose decision was adopted by the b i a denied my client's claim to relief on the grounds that she failed to establish that her brother's threats to kill her upon our return to sri lanka had a statutory nexus


page and said look we gave him fifty two weeks of classes for domestic violence end of story i have what i consider to be a two forty two and it's a great it's a domestic violence well suppose my client i had


ana that's absolutely correct it's just that that he got caught yeah when he came back but that's absolutely correct your honor would there be discretion if he had stayed in the country and committed the crime versus


precedent and supreme court decision in the ninth circuit in that case held that that was incorrect and the immigration judge had not apply the modified categorical approach that only applied to categorical approach and the ninth circuit in that case granted the petition and


word yes i mean i think if it's the court simply use some magic words and that was it i know that might not be enough but here i think the i j a really identified


there's a relationship of the opposition party being responsible for these killings the third you know you don't have to be an attempted murder on yourself if it's everyone around you and that's going on


is increase in symptoms due to increased activity which is to be expected when you've got a torn meniscus in there that hasn't been treated that doesn't mean you've really affected the torn meniscus and then it was the surgery on the torn meniscus that was really the distributing factor


congress could have said hey by the way we also are going to be bound by the convention the rights of the child which it hasn't and we can apply it let's apply that in cancellation cases congress certainly could have done that and indeed torture convention regulations we


interviews especially with the earlier one the immigration judge felt that the information provided through that interview that did not match his decoration attached


organization that petitioner was a member of the all india seek student federation no longer did not in and of itself lead to persecution or arrest that's like you just recently maybe you could be i know you you got a line of thinking if that


i mean no i don't know and it does not appear it did well moving on


testimony beyond what his parents provided to the record i mean how clear can it be even in the opening brief that he is


order because they are the ones that currently have the assets that is of interest to the district court it's our contention that judge real was acting


of the sights of the parties and the order of the standing by on and because the court doesn't necessarily have to determine a physical situs when applying the docking under the cockroach dr and so discovery as to when the assets


but if a person takes a hammer and hits his hand and says i can't go that's a different i would i would argue that starting a fight and being the protagonist in a fight is also making yourself not available to


got jurisdiction to determine new matter additional to further deficiencies fund and additions to tax under section sixty two fourteen and even has the determination i mean the jurisdiction to


three or four weeks would be my guess he would essentially be incommunicado he has no family members here that could visit him so if that were the case we would ask that he had least be afforded the opportunity to make a graceful departure


seventy two requirements we win so we win either way if we win the first part on attainment determination that he pay shouldn't have rounded this expansion shouldn't have occurred and the bay area would still have to do


have just dealt with all these issues in the first instance and that we see a lot of cases where the board doesn't tie the knots doesn't complete the record and then we send it down because there's an unresolved issue it's not your you know that i am


nine can authorize a change but to return to the point we tried to make earlier the no action alternative is to leave article thirty eight undisturbed and that is no federal action that is no


country and is in danger considering we don't know what he said that's true well we know he was hospitalized from a beating because nobody questioned that during the trial and he came up with medical records we


is the it is a problem of two process and if you we believe if you look at this decision if you look at the immigration judge's decision and then look back at the reasons


jeans that she was that she and her daughter were being to the point of bleeding that her foot was cut by a ball that it just mr head these are the her testimony is credible and she should have had an opportunity to pursue asylum


classic tail wagging dog case and it's a case in which the tail here is really really tiny and the dog is a saint bernard the only reason we're here talking about the bankruptcy court order is because


on their own without any involvement on my part of my client's part negotiated the stipulated order which judgement holly signed now they try to take the language in the discussion from judgment tali about the propriety of


of proceeding in district court and of course now they would argue that we're stuck in state court because we have a bankruptcy from which he genie has emerged and there is no longer any chapters eleven jurisdiction over


arrest that happened where the alleged rape occurred she gave two different statements about her state of consciousness which is really not i mean i read that really carefully and she said that she came


this talk that the district has failed and has done nothing keep in mind the district is going to adopting rules and regulations since its inception and we're basically within six months of hopefully attaining the standard it's that last little percent


in each year it's the same language as one eighty seven g again it's a distinction without a difference finally the district was talking about the progress it was making in cleaning up the air in the san joaquin valley and it said that it only


asking that it be reminded to the board for what purpose to reopen to take the adjustment of status upon approval the visa petition and then they can adjudicate whether western hemisphere


for example we have the fact that she clearly claimed eventually she had up out of valid passport didn't bring it with her and said she had a photocopy in the united states that she gave to


presented again to decide whether there proffering are such that under the standards it will do justice under the act they would have a higher standard of proof though if they get it sort of speak collaterally if they did hear


i believe the court should your honor he states very specific specifically he's trying to do what he understands the impro perk as making a declaration under honor he says i am being truthful you


with the notion that under certain circumstances it would be trying to focus here on whether the agents opinion about what it shows is enough i suppose maybe i should ask i mean i


consistency between any of the orders i also want to point out that in this case the counsel for the petitioner with respect to the other second family did raise the issues


actually i think that was


it would be impossible for the forest service to come to the conclusion that it did that perhaps a dam removal wasn't the only option but under this record under this science that is in fact the only option that was before the agency and one factual error the forest service


pervasive in a society such as in haiti and to see here that we're going to find that a person is actually the persecuted by the government through means of corruption so i think there is that distinction in the case law and understanding that


amada and ross holder appear to be the conduct that the court look to in this case it doesn't matter to my client because the court has to reverse under either basis and this is true even with respect to the with with respect to the trigger of the bar because they both asked


regulation when they're looking at the common law test for employment and control oh so we have here also the interstate commerce commission which has been very clear and very broad a minute just even before


undisputed in the record is sufficient to me to allow the court to conclude that burden has been met then the burden shifts to the defendant under the common law test and so the defendants would have been in the same position they were an


process of elimination that is the only thing left for them to do if the sentencing commission tell you that dr oz of it on the nation i did that mean there is nothing right because what you're saying is you're we should infer it but what i'm trying to ask you is what is it and you say well


about the type of offense and the dangerousness those are all considerations that are thirty five fifty three and there are specific we delegated in the statute to the sentencing judge so when they are using those as making as many for making the


so the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of p c r counsel simply doesn't matter and yes can i ask with apologies judge much for stealing your question but sort of ask


right your honor there's nothing in good faith that mr bank could act his complaint at this time and it remains a position that his complaint as it is is possible and that he pleaded sufficient factual allegations about risk


happens when sasco is to state court in virginia in chains under dollars another way to think about this would be to say if this were not a u k company in other words if this were a company from any of the forty


that distinguished judiciary in the united kingdom would be terribly upset and i would be rightly so who it is this is one nation interfering in


you have miranda and you have the officers telling you you have the right to counsel here and you can stop any time you didn't do that so he


administration of that test to the d n a evidence in his case have there been petitioners that have been able to get their d n a retested under this statute yes your honor so i would direct the court to a successful writ of innocence haast


of discretion to the dam owner to decide what web design flood to use of it and there's simply nothing in the regulations that says if of them you know the plaintiffs


single ab's proceeding so there's no really no way to argue there's an abuse and really the only way i think that he might encounter difficulties is a few steps and sometimes a procedural snare like the jurisdictional problem that a potential jurisdictional problem we've been discussing but i


made and of course the plaintiffs shows you that even though they said they terminated him because of safety violations that the value that they supposedly


but i would prefer the court to the two thousand and seventeen car for a decision car for two which says it is very similar that if a if an issue is clearly presented by existing law and the real problem here is that everybody miss it at the


counts but then you have this middle ground where north carolina sits where the state did not draw the line using this overcomes resistance language but it also said there must be something more than just a snatching solution


winston is when an end made sentence may have been predicated on application of the now word residual clause and therefore may be an unlawful sentence under the holding in johnson the inmate has shown that he


defense if the jury believes that he went to the home to pick up a car title and not to commit a battery you know what mrs mysie i'd like to give you an opportunity and you know you usually don't get into this but i'd like to


have is an example in a very similar case where mr dotson was also facing a life in prison with sort of this enhanced meant where when he found out that the evidence against him was not as strong as he believed he tried to withdraw his plea the petitioner argues that that


to that they could stick a television on the communal wall outside his cell which is pre wired in that he could watch through the window of his cell in listen and hear to juma three that they could loan him a television for an hour a week also on the record is the


that petitioner stated under penalty of perjury that he was sexually assaulted by the guard and so there's nothing to it there's no adverse credibility findings he says under oath assaulted by the guard and the th circuit said in


guns that are stored all together and there's nothing distinguishing them they're not stored separately they're not possessed at different times if they were if there were ten guns for example they were all stored together in one possession and that would support only one hundred and twenty four dollars


the law and i would just point out that there were other yes but he didn't ultimately there yet he was released from segregation at red onion a month that really got there because he


why inside of a prison do we think communicable diseases or something you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and so if you get the flu and they so long you know the prison officials immediately move you


quiet without any any aggression without any movement not to the police officers are on guard there is casual as can be that is not a risky situation that he's


arisen and the court had to struggle with the question of how do you address the issue of qualified immunity in a unique situation in which this kind of scenario has not previously


said that we couldn't sees him but he wasn't causing a problem we we couldn't prevent him from going in because he wasn't there was nothing we could do we had no right to put our hands on him so to speak and his so and so is it your position that the


compelling when you read re re involved exactly the same language the step the amendment becomes effective on october one in a plastic plants rising on or after that date and the supreme court in north carolina said that language is not the lumen it be as effective date language like that is in every


i don't know that we can prevail on the litigation that stems from the arbitration at this point because the arbitration award is so poorly drafted in a clear i don't know that the arbitration or get any party


i'm sorry so let me let me then follow up with that because that i kind of i think i understand where you're going with that if the perceived done certain the about that award means


tried before the jury was handled and part of that is mentioned it's in the joint index page four forty and four forty one the prosecution knew before this trial started because of a prior trial with the same with


and i understand that but he but he having been warm about this he made that decision not to go to trial now whatever whatever and you know december itself will swap you leave the other cases because whatever possibility is out


to jump off a bridge to shoot myself or to use my own errors to kill myself and while i'm a heart of hearts i would like for this court to find a payoff to consider some of the the


incentive to do that given the state of record because there were other offenses that satisfied the enhanced so i think that that speculation and the the way that you would make a record on that is through a twenty to fifty five motion and a hearing on that if the


not correct the court said ok defense counsel said he is a permanent resident of the united states for some time the court inquired possibility of deportation defense counsel said possibility


that immigration that that had vast to the court and what was said in court about possibility is a is wrong and


to the extent he's relying on change circumstances at all he can't show it because the general treatment of ethnic a retreat ins has not changed and it doesn't really address what impact of any his individual de nationalisation might have


and in the st incident although we don't have video footage to review that but in the nd incident we can see that the officers that were not feeling a sense of urgency or a threat after he was restrained against the wall then they decided to throw


man is unpublished your honor i do what's the closest authority in a published authority because i think for clearly established purposes we look at published cases


buying a farm in the commission of a felony and the original sentencing and thirty two or thirty three here how is that incremental couple of years prejudicial well your honor


to the particular factual means here looking at the virginia burglary statutes the jury does not need to be in an unanimous as to which of the crimes looked at in the statute the defendant needed to have the intent to commit the jury just needs to be unanimous to


deadly force with an act that by definition constitutes a substantial step towards accomplishing that intent you have committed a federally attempted use of force


to your key he disregards that it takes a rd order to go back but not before he confronts the case manager in front of one hundred and seventy rogue band mates who are already voicing displeasure at the basic charge the


got to show two steps right you've got to show that there's an unreasonable factual finding but independent of that once you clear that hurdle you still have to show that he's entitled to help


struck down under strict scrutiny and regulation and there was only collation of distribution of video games to minors even so it was struck down under strict scrutiny likewise was able communications case the court said diana porn restrictions and


ok counsel was not there when the judge went on the nd visit to see the lighting right are we on the same page yes ok let's just talk it straight up to novo review what's the case that says you're right


right so the distinction is that in twenty thousand one hundred and sixty three years after the documents were signed right they they changed the way they were applying payments the parties had a conversation about this very topic in two thousand


if you continue to apply those payments pro rata as required by the documents and as you've always done the only way we'll agree to something different is if we amend this deal if we entered into new transactional documents changing


contract from two thousand and thirteen until two thousand and sixteen they applied all payments in a pro rata manner beginning in two thousand and sixteen after reaffirming that that would continue they then changed the way they apply


affidavit for both false arrest and malicious prosecution the court analyzed what was in that that affidavit determine whether or factored in the alleged false hoods and omissions and determine whether or not there was still arguable probable cause


shift the burden of proof and impose a diligence requirement if if the law were as the government describes an ad out what the person with mental and with a mental and inability would have needed to alleges i was trapped in the hospital and that's why i couldn't access the lottery or i didn't


bears the burden of proof that loses so if the burden is on the petitioner the court must presume that the motions untimely but if the burden is on the government which it is with respect to affirmative defenses like this the court must instead presume that the motions timely so to the extent that the court thinks that there are


cause which i believe is met by that and i can imagine way suggesting that they would think somebody would be arrested for that or that there wouldn't be some police action on it because this is a neighborhood


advertisements appears reasonable and constitutional on his face that holding no longer stands after mancy i mean nancy compels this court to reverse the th circuit your best case your best post man's case applying manthey in the context of


it different in that you have to live the next month before you can pay it so it's different than a contract that in theory would pay you or your estate social security doesn't work that way right we think that the proper way to view


decision that the fair labor standards act preempted the rico claims made in this case the lower court stated that because because of the fair labor standards act


plea and the government brings the case there or they're operating on behalf of themselves and other governments but i mean this isn't in the statute that it has to be against private parties as you know but it does if you want to have standing to sue for an


the several of the report weekly reports were delinquent at the beginning of this process and so the motion to dismiss related to the delinquency of those reports but


with two offers which they rejected out a hand but we do didn't know was that you know six days after dismissal a deal was reached with some other parties so they were apparently dealing with another party and not letting us know that if if we had known that they didn't have any


in my understanding is that the interest that was sold was grant the civics note not the receiver's interest to be to be honest your honor i think i haven't had much involvement in the state court proceedings so once the


lawsuit to resolve whether or not there's a benefit to claiming that property and trying to go further in fending money to see if you'll realize the money you get the could've been a settlement here unfortunately the trustee chose a different route


facts of the case on the ground to determine what kind of process is necessary the court has already said you know what that process is going to look different from factual scenario a factual scenario which is why i just keep coming back to this factual scenario where


their reply brief appellants here have essentially accused pvc of that as acting as a rogue agency for forty five years contrary acting contrary to the intent of congress in terminating plans by agreement by


his violations of that order but is there anything in the record that state that where she state the basis other for her conclusion that this they did not apply other than the


telly to be there in their participation was very very very limited all the court said was has the temp and purged and the answer was no there wasn't any other discussion so this


rise to the right to payment in other words if you're going to pay for something the party on the other side has to do that something and even the contract in this case states that


but it was entered as an order by the court and i would knowledge to this court i understand i'm fighting somewhat of an uphill battle because i'm asking this bench to look at the lower court the


the word standing in its original order original meaning judge friedman or i'm sorry they may have said that you were not you we could not enforce it i apologize i think what they may have said is that we could not


somehow automatically i get the right to dispute that when they say that they step into the sins of the person exactly but there's that idea there's absolutely no evidence of them stepping into the shoes receiver there has to be an


thinking carefully as to what we really mean and whether it really should be your state claim or some other doctor because under federal principles i know this is a diversity case but under federal principles the federal courts have to have jurisdiction and standing is part of the jurisdiction


notice to the parties as to what the trial is going to be certainly being asked like these schedules don't reflect this personal bank account would have given the notice that it is being tried and so


have access to that information the plaintiff does not i can't issue a subpoena i can't do more discovery because we've got the stay so either why do you have to stay we have a stay because we both based on our scotians


also giving it to other officers as they did their parts of the process to add information


and if you look at page three of that the agency's policy is that a claim it need not race in appointments clause challenge before they o j in order to obtain so it's not just that there is no issue


relevant agency nor congress have done s s a is a unique sui generis informal and not adversarial regulatory structure where such a rule would be inappropriate finally the government has


counts are barred by herb a lot of the amendment immunity legislative immunity governmental immunity or qualified immunity the action of determining the qualifications of


also a state issue lurking in the back here so i want to explain since the district court thought we had children likelihood of success on the show and really simple reasons why the district court got the interpretation of these two contracts wrong and that is that the


it need not decide whether mary waived its rights under the contract by accepting royalty payments from para go under the agreement forgive me please if i'm going to be very focused on the choice of language here but


duck it that the th circuit could say you're right that you can sell under sara but they're right that you can't sell and are sergeants and that would solve our problem wouldn't it if they were to go that


think in that respect it's sane most likely you're going to be moving someone to lock them up whereas the commentary defines abduction as just the example that it gives is force


burton held that a bodily integrity violation could occur in the context of water contamination and we're going to rely on our priest to preserve that argument so i don't want to spend too much time on that what i want to argue today is looking at


stock yes thank you your honor my name is samuel bag and stuff and i represent the athletes who are the plaintiffs in the consolidated flint water cases when water class passions which is which is this case


that i think that my colleague who has bet in the house and might be confusing a fact question and a lot of question here has been hasn't says correctly the question is was is there a fair warning girton establishes their spare warning that deliberately difference


and the case is over yet somehow the district court imposed a four level inherence men for this this expenditure which which there are of which there's nothing even in the record


right the nd one is the fact that we are claiming an equal protection violation ok so if so what i'm there are two different claims you're focused on sufficiency as to equal protection i mean you


by the m d o c who are allowed to have group services and other religious holiday find at least two of those have the same sort of separatists not actually not identical to the christian identity


right right and that's why i think judge steve made the distinction with regard to the plaintiff in this case that they're predominantly commercial messages that the their advertisers pay for and that's why he


nobody has a reasonable expectation of privacy and hidden cameras facing their apartment doors that that would be fine i think if it space that that is visible to


police practice that the constitution requires here is that it and if it's clear to every reasonable officer that if they did anything else it was if they tasered your position is


meet any one of the factors there was an employment relationship the new standard is to balance these factors and the very preamble to the text year shows that the deal well as looking at this as an all or nothing standard unless the court has any further


colloquy the judge asks was was it a structure that was in missouri county and mr smith says yes now admittedly the legal definition of inhabitable structure under the missouri law is one that is broader includes these other


if for some reason that is because she's we know she's being called to testify against her husband white white i understand that the communications wouldn't be privileged but i understand you to be asserting


liberty and that's why we that's why we've argued in our brief that the privilege should not be extended to the civil cases if you do not have any


part answer for me the direct and short response is that mr arnold considers himself to be aggrieved by the judgment not by the courts recognition that he had a legitimate that he had a


he expected feared milking landers to testify that they all saw the excessive force that was used against him and thomas actually thought that mills was in the best position to see what happened in response the court stated that three people didn't need to testify to the same


shouldn't and therefore doesn't need to say this what he doesn't know here is how these various jailhouse informant jailhouse informants whether it's randolph kember oh can't mccloy came by their


freestanding corp i mean how i think mr powers may be able to answer that better but it's technically i think the propagation arm of the nation of islam and there's no corporate relationship between the two but the best but we're talking about is the problem with the implied


and not authorized in the united states and vice versa there's an international convention called the berne convention that covers these things but the problem the legal issues that arise when something was that was legitimately made in a foreign country is brought into the united


revocation and resulting confinement in mr mark situation there was a two thousand and ten pts that formed an independent basis ideo see custody which did form a basis for custody so mere custody would not have been sufficient in this case there was


and i don't see that there i don't have to dig into the brief i don't have it off the top of my head i mean it's it's in its eyes far as i knew it was correctly cited in our brief if it's not


court is well aware an agency claim requires the alleged agent to actually be doing something on behalf of the principal acting on the principles behalf such as signing a contract with the principals name on it or doing some


any issue about singur gate in being for his protection as opposed to punish the only indication in the record is that he was placed in segregation because at least for the initial placement and segregation was due to an altercation with


with with water on the floor which is something that could evaporated was a temporary condition and in fact all the cases that we've been cited by menards have to do with temporary conditions what we're talking about in this case is a planter that was a


judge that why exactly the replenish meant it takes place it is i think it is a matter to be taken up by a jury and that's what we're asking for is that this case that the ruling from judge rowland be reversed and that we have


mental and physical yes both yes they are c was deficient both in its mental and in its physical component would you do the e c or is there one well the ve said that


i'm ninety nine percent in agreement with that but this situation is extraordinary ok your honor i'll i'm not sure why this is any different than any other cases that are brought on in


amount but that's roughly my estimate and that can happen in a lot of cases apparently yes and yes absolutely there are other cases like useful i'm like in


all of your objections are still preserved well it's it's a little bit more than that because right before the recent thing hearing this verse amid a document asking the court basically to reconsider its prior findings


went up with his hand on his gun briefly and then did had his outer pockets right after that they said as they're letting him into the front seat of the marked car just to confirm you're coming with us consensually voluntarily he said yes and it


guy read the birthday party a question and the juror finds out about it properly calls it to the court's attention i think that you're behaving in an entirely responsible way but there's been a lot


defendant had retained his counsel of choice and that counsel is being paid for privately if for example what if what if an attorney was agreeing to represent him pro bono that doesn't mean that he would be denied access


over the course of a little bit of a capital case it's very difficult to predict what changes in there might be in u s supreme court law or were state law and then as that


could have plaid facts supporting the no in our case no no no no no you don't have to plead facts you plead claims right you use discovery to get facts this complaint


well even if it's clear the problem is yours inventiveness in the sense of johnson you know that nobody knew what a belong to the residual clause into it and everybody was throwing darts at the wall for years until the supreme court finally said forget it we just can't do this and i


decision there isn't any media i'm sorry there isn't any in to mediate form of custody as i understand the record there's just the general population and people who are booked down


proof of proving what their policy was and they came forward a closer to the cation with affidavits stating everybody does not go into the general population that depends on a variety of factors it's a case by case decision we do not have a


if the claim is covered it's if it could be covered that's the doctrine correct and our position is that the injury to an insured exclusion of bars coverage for that that's a completely


to create a very special ground for confirmation of a plant chapter six section thirteen twenty five b was amended to provide order to confirm a plan a debtor who


twenty eight for the short appendix when plan modification is sought by a trustee the statutorily created test of good faith applies and that's a shortening the quotation quite a bit but that's what it says no


requires with particularity so there is no well the c i whose name i can't give anybody said it's that place in the multi unit dwelling which all cops know is confusing meaning that he got a multi unit whiling they got do the


automatic handgun on a table in the bedroom the c i had a record of providing information that had led to the seizure of narcotics and three cell any arrests in the prior previous three months


needed him for other purposes i don't know what what why he wasn't prosecuted i'm not i'm not sure that he wasn't but i don't think that he was but they had every reason to believe that that mohamed the person they had did


to go to the police all the testimony from my client was that his father in fact you know adds his father ask him to do it but the idea that you're going to steal your stepmother is jory in order to get away from your father permanently and you


defendant ok the insurance company ok who doesn't want to pay claim even though they collect the premium and their lawyer to the insurance company hired to protect the insurance company's distress and maybe tangentially their insurance interests


here that settlement statute i would point out is obviously for the purpose of trying to settle a case and who in their right mind would settle a case or try to settle a case without knowing all of the available coverage it would be malpractise for me to it's like say to


contends that that


i see very little efficacious for the records that are not in a court setting the purpose is to see if people are violating the laws we're going purchases of pseudoephedrine and we believe that that is


however the only evidence we respect to her false sort of occasion about this contemporaneous documentation is an e mail that she wrote in two thousand and ten which was several years after she began working for her


and it was free to find that that evidence is not credible however one should expect that if the district court were to find that two witnesses including a government witness perjured themselves with respect to an issue that


then nothing happens and then judge will a scene suddenly signs a completely different order not tethered to ban the states saying well you know maybe maybe he was thinking of some blood on a sweat shirt that


rack case it may be that it's completely irrelevant but if it is irrelevant i'd like to know why and the state is continuing this with the blood sample we could have gotten a blood sample we didn't you know i don't know why you didn't but


what you argue for the exception that you don't write don't it still is essential holding was that these should almost never be a basis and then this court in career are interpreted that to mean they were outside of the scope of twenty two fifty four day however the court said we


apply to other cases so that's my first point my second point is that i'm still looking for authority that says you can reach back into a closed separate case


i don't see why at a minimum a better explanation was uncalled for and a maximum why it wasn't an abuse of discretion to me to at least try under so than indiana local rule eighty seven to


and thirteen three weeks before that he had been shot five times on keystone ave in his front yard by what was suspected to be or at least with your approval of nate hoskins who was taking


in the district court if the jury had heard crypt proles abilities struction it's possible that they may have given stewart a shorter sentence but in light of the bad facts as to its age at the time of the trial in the linky sense the jury did impose it's just


away no entitlement he acknowledges that he was terminated for the employment missing the four days and under the employment policy there is no harm there is no retaliation and the record is crystal clear on


maybe if it gets worse you just have to start to leave later which you know he was trying to do here by started his leave on ten twenty eight even though now he's claiming he was heard on ten twenty three of i never went to a doctor so i think it makes sense actually when you look at it and of course there's


doesn't live when he's working well that's where he stays when he's not working his mouth how i mean that's the normal place for him to be when he is not on the job is not how you know that you say so you want him four days on four days off he goes the other


so that's where the dog was it did they take apart the they've taken apart the walls of the bus by then so they knew there was more contraband there no you're are they they were they had not this is all hypothesizing after the fact well the


and did a fine job on that because it's well preserved in the record and i believe that if he did what he need to do as to this the second thing i want to do


and at a certain point in time judge to a due to and i'm decided that he wanted to have an evidentiary hearing on on the various sentencing objections so that was held and i believe my


but then argue that the district court's bound by the government prior agreement which is no longer a meeting of the minds between the parties and the government would with suggests not only is there no sixth amendment interest but the district court certainly committed no error


you know that's come an agency thing we'd really like it if the agency would enforce the integrity fields process by finding when someone commits perjury they don't get these get these remedies in this case the issue of whether the agency abused its discretion in not finding


use the guidelines the standard set forth in jacksonville virginia that in light most favorable to the verdict could


accommodations are being alleged when you consider the fact that the accommodations that are being alleged either violate the collective bargaining agreement by giving preference to someone who is not temporarily ill or temporarily injured would require us to turn a


that the interactive process was done in bad faith the facts of that case your honor the individual requested accommodations requested vacant jobs knew of a vacant job ask for help find those jobs was told


of the one of the officers testified that it took about five minutes to affect the arrest of mr waters before he was taken out and he could remember where the protective suite started before or after that five minutes but we're talking a


bannister the bank holding company your borrowed twenty million dollars and in two thousand and twelve our best bank came in decided to take over the branches that union bank had built in bannister's the holding


obligated them to to seek reimbursement from medicaid well primarily federal law and state law because while they don't curse


classifications that language is in the policy twice it's categorical there is no other way to calculate the premiums except by those government approved manuals and rating plants they obviously are a part of the contract and the


cancel and any premiums that you're owed could be refunded so as soon as that policy shows up they've got a dispute with the schedule rating they can say i don't want to pay that and please cancel the policy and go on somewhere else so that and that kind of flips back to the remedy side of it the course there


incorporated into the policies by operation of law and the policies language example policies general section part five premium paragraph a our manuals and relevant part all premium for this policy will


commands on the ground and he showed his hands which is also by the way consistent with the photographic evidence that the district court did not consider of mr henderson with both of his hands out we included in that in the brief as well as the photo if you get evidence excluded


their hands and so for a reason officer would have looked at this person's hands as he was walking down the hall presumably that would be one more thing or one more reason that they knew or should have known that he was unarmed when he was laying on the ground additionally the


united states in which the defendant posted violent rap lyrics online that he created and the supreme court held that they weren't actually true threats because he didn't mean it even though on the surface it sounded like true threats that's what


patient being roger and linda's son shaan who was initially in fairview i c u on may eighth two thousand and thirteen and died the next day on another floor one of the discreet advance


gets down to what is the service that fairview is providing if the idea is it's just to relay information then it is like a lawyer but carer conferences are not just to relay information


adverse action much too narrowly for a state law minnesota whistleblower act in minnesota human rights act claim losing the forest through the trees and fourth the court construes facts in favor of millennium without considering the fact of


this is not an honest belief this is not good faith this is a dirt digging retaliatory investigation and it's based on hearsay all of what simmons said is based on what an assistant manager


keep going the qualified immunity portion also affected the summary judgment which again i would encourage your honour's to consider the fact that we we believe there was there was substantive evidence and enough evidence to get to a


with well then you get what you're talking about then is either you have an unconstitutional custom or you have a deliberately indifferent they are to train both of which require that there be a notice to the final policy maker of the county of that


it finally my third point on that on why it was a fraud is because larry both at specifically testified that he relied on advice of counsel in making that checkbox on that affidavit and that's something that he's


filed right is that the status you asked for it but it was never really done no no your honor we we filed so what happened procedurally in this case there was an answer first i believe is nov twenty


there because they turn over quickly like you know food in a grocery store thought of but if you take a look at the photograph you the photographs are shot from both ends how do we know that's not a story you say it's restocking it looks to me like more like storage and that's really bad


instead this caller makes a particularly right evaluation of the content of the agency decision or the nature of the v a s decision indicates that apply the wrong standard or leave the matter in doubt this court has not hesitated to remove


the incorporated terms that is to say under new jersey law there is a heavy emphasis on the customer's nol actual knowledge of the arbitration agreement and more than that the fact that arbitration


has attempted to negotiate one year statute of limitations when your limitation period as a matter of contract in the bill of lading sometimes successfully sometimes not successfully and the com source of food service case is a good


indefinite statute of limitation either they file under their or entirely the file under the bill of lading and they did file under the bill waiting or they didn't or they don't have a claim at all so


forty nine c a fart to ten thirty five point one makes that applicable and makes applicable the bill of lading which is in part part of that to be


kathy it was a sham in city for the purpose of committing a fraud against people one of the elements of instrumentality that the only purpose of this entity was to be used as an instrument tally to defraud investors


roe by it sounds almost religious doesn't there's nothing in that statute that says anything about post judgment remedies having to be asserted within one year are ten years from and after the entry of


true here any officer who sees on facebook a posting of long rifles and the question of should we you know which one of these do i need to shoot up again darn in the wake of what's even happened since then he's putting the sandy hook massacre which is certainly on the pellets mind


again that took place at the time that mr doyle would pour his house was being searched for drugs pursuant to a search warrant or no i think it was he consented to the search of his house and at that


the motions to suppress that he claims he didn't get a hearing for i would just say these things the defendant claims that the judge should have held an evidentiary suppression hearing even though he


let me address the realistic probability test and that's what it's grounded on it's not a map as it's not in there or therefore that's in the story don't apply the test because there's no basis for let's say mathis and the other didn't exist and you guys had


there was never really an opportunity for anyone to address that timeliness issue in the district so if we were let me just ask the united states straight up on this if we were to order supplemental briefing would the united states take the position that the petition is timely and


what preemption gets to is the duty is the standard of care and so long as the cause of action is seeking only to enforce that federal uniform federal


law we're just saying the reality is that state common law product liability i mean it's it varies all over the map just every state may have a presence contributory negligence may be handled differently


location or a different location they could look at the stores in the area and say well this this store has the very high volume of snap is doing really well in snap it's got it's making a lot of money on snap and they might choose to


believe is in paragraph seventeen of the first minute complaint that his advice is that they borrow more money to downsize and get into a smaller property they were very concerned because they had no source of income other


i believe it was not i believe they are sister corporations that are ultimately held by the same bank holding corporation that the disclosures are made in our disclosure statement


or that it was too uncertain the agency simply pointed to the biological review teams demographic risk assessment to fill the gap but that is just the essential a numerical ranking of scientists predictions of what


the value was one hundred fifty and they came in and said fifty i think it's the court's obligation at that point to find a value either of fifty one fifty or somewhere in between and they didn't do that and they and the


we get this a little late i mean if in fact the whole reason for this is the notice and the opportunity to investigate we've already had a trial your honor


corruption it's a very specific analysis that the sensing court has to engage in and if you look at the sentencing transcript the sentencing judge was completely uncertain about what mr wyndham's prospects for a future


i have a question for you about i have concerns about jurisdiction in this case all right and that i just i think the case that you cite deals with abandonment here


actually assist mr mason with the notice of appeal the facts are and i apologize i did what i didn't do was follow the rule the local rule which said that i should


seriously different environmental impacts from the standpoint of water natural resources animals and so on i might be inclined to agree with your argument but the alternative you want to just another straight


lack of standing because the because the alternative that would have routed buses away from where were my client has his shop wasn't considered so the only project that was that was considered in the e a a was the one that directly affects and that's all that's necessary


effects analysis does not hinge on whether the impact is adverse or beneficial and so fundamentally under nif may you're supposed to have a systematic land management plan that applies consistently and so a piece mail a piecemeal


these or the starting point for the analysis of this case is the assumption that the defendants deliberately targeted the playing


and the incidental take statement and that's the say i think you're right ok i sort of didn't i just want to make sure you know that's the way i read it and i didn't make sure i was on with you it's a domino if they're right on one thing on the right all of them and


effective we know that your berms are not effective so this is a time to challenge it here and now not later because there's no ex post facto review thank you thank thank you very much alliance for most thankful sage for their arguments


hospitalization and and opined that it was it was not this is not a drug problem that he's showing here this is an underlying mental illness and there's no question the judge agreed that he has mental illness aside from the


analysis your position is that the most fundamental errors is failing to given due credit to martina's well i think it's two things


want him to get in and it's like i can get in i don't know if i can get out under these conditions it's not it's like the flip of hotel california but then you turn around and say but these are merged for purposes of jurisdiction so tell me


he was innocent if there was no other evidence to suggest that there was no then a sense then yeah it shouldn't go to the jury under the devereaux standard it does not rise to a constitutional biological let me let me play out my


appellant do not have personal standing or individual standing to sue the f b i and agent or of it the district court also found that the bare


my question how you would meet that standard he said the issue was whether he wouldn't have known that the family could sue him for his and constitutional


is making people commit more crime oh we're certainly not saying that's making we're saying it allows as as the court said in elliott park it goes it's beyond dispute that if you don't enforce the criminal laws then


remarks are circumstantial evidence well i think they can be considered under the pretext and else as well but i do believe they are direct evidence that can be relied upon to preclude summary judgment in and of itself in in the main is curry actually


propane tank and that was the reason why both of them were fired and then the discussion about why hearst west pretextual actually took up more space than he is and


obstruction somebody is in the way of somebody else remember mr lasater was in the way of mrs lathrop he would not let the police proceed with an investigation of him threatening to have somebody cut their throat and test the difference in this kind


with with treatment is not disabling in an impairment that doesn't last for at least twelve months is not sailing out of the social security act with regard to the limitations of


the safety of the officer doesn't seem to me that they did i would respectfully disagree your honor as as you indicated in the evidence to suggest that they pose an immediate threat the


wrist and doesn't come forward with any sort of injury that he then has a fourth amendment claim for excessive force so you're really not arguing as i understand it that if he has no injury claim you're really trying to make an argument


recognizes that that right exists but it also recognizes that that right is not unconditional yes of and so they have to prove it by deliberate indifference which is almost it which is one of the extreme levels of proof


testify about all those different impairments it would be harmful error because what we have would have then is there are only two reasons stated that reason would be no good the other reason was there are different


amendment allegation we believe that like why should be affirmed the last thing was was the retaliation under the fourteenth amendment of being moved to a variety


district court denied qualified immunity and to both of them if we can separate the first shot the second shot it was just an outright denial of qualified immunity i don't know that the


property that was an issue the only property that would be at issue would be the corporate stock itself the corporate stock even if it's in the middle of the tree fully owned one percent by a debtor does not convey the interest in the assets owned by the


understand the argument the opposing argument is that sure we have jurisdiction over an injunction if the injunction is coming up to us properly but


without inspection or with inspection we are asking that people who are seeking to adjust their status based on marriage to a u s citizen are imported that same provision and protection


later committed wrongdoing there was a hearing multi day hearing with cross examination and direct examination on factual findings that's a trial the only significant limitation was the deliberative process privilege and that's


knee back and obesity are not disabling crime only challenging the mental ok because i didn't see in your briefing where you were making that physical challenge to it's purely a mental case and in a sense a lot of the credibility factors


contract if he on the other hand thinks he doesn't have an on compete then why isn't he pretty much like the law for example that you can't


and frankly we cleared up if attorneys fees are to be awarded they're regarded as a category distinct from damages right that is an ems servicing versus schwartz collar


and seven months which is the same age bracket as when she was forty seven which at her alleged onset date she didn't change age categories prior to the l j decision could have applied an older


to give the port of seattle an opportunity to plead in an affirmative defense i think would be very untimely and prejudicial to us because we should have been pled in the first summary judgment four years ago it wasn't raised in


different than the waterfall under the confirm plan the yellowstone debtors and so they're going to have to be some reconciliation of those two between those two states but that shouldn't concern this


issue of fact at the very least because there is no evidence that she has any kind of a fraudulent intent now mr blix and mr blix that's the three and and there's been there was no evidence introduced on that issue and and then


brissie sixty five thousand dollars so it's important to remember too that the u i hammed jury trial was specifically held at to address and resolve the question


indicted by the federal government for violent crimes he lost his policing powers he lost his badge he lost his weapon what did kirkpatrick do with him she put him in a purely administrative function and allowed him to control


determined they did not give the advice they claimed was given his role was different on the credit suisse along different on the marriage settlement agreement release on the marriage settlement agreement we have that you had a complaint with this is what we're trying to get you to focus on this


did say he could relocate however the birthplace tangle is just sixty miles from the area where he was politically active for ten years with the jetty a party he does have a sister and brother


the file and you probably hardly good i'm not asking for a confession but you've got a pretty good sense that gee the i j a really didn't marshal what he needs here so that's why i'm sitting here saying ok where does this case go i can't help the feeling we're past that station as


shift to the person who's receiving the payments but you know fundamentally there's no basis under either the tax code or california law for mr duncan to have an exclusion for the portion of his


determine whether he might be willing to grant this felon the right to stay in this country or not


mr whitney knows how to push the buttons you know sort of push and pull this with this you know secrets you know this confidence this the intangibles those are the kind of the tangibles the demeanor of the witness as we all know it's


not only did he give up his of his direct appeal he agreed not to pursue or to withdraw his motion for acquittal and his motion for a new trial but also i think there's another issue here in terms of his reliance and just relying on


prevailing on his motion for acquittal and yet as part of the agreement that they struck with the u s attorney's office they agreed not to pursue that so it's a combination of withdrawing hasn't done a little suspect a lawyer statement


charged indictment of all of the counts because each one of these where this actually is the looked at every one of each one of these boards you know it's was for billings in the mount between two and eight thousand dollars and six thousand dollars missing that had


bird here there and everywhere and you just keep sort of coming up with not you personally but well real reasons why we're not going to pay any attention to that rather than saying oh but then as the birds there we've got to check it out not the commission it was official wildlife service


these are very tricky issues the projects displaced fossil fuel fueled electric power generation that the region know uses thereby conserving nonrenewable fossil fuels and reducing the emissions of noxious by products caused by fossil fuel combustion so


on the other hand we believe that the board should consider whether there's there's an extraordinary circumstance if a lawyer is telling you you're going to get a green card through this process and that's what was represented to him on pages one sixteen one seven he makes that clear if a lawyer is telling the


protection act the government was arguing that once the agency makes a final determination that's it and the court said this court said no it's the final determination is not just when the agency makes


pending and that's the language that your president juvenile fourteen failed within one year in other words he should have done something before he was fifteen years of no we don't again we


in their support the black letter law yes as you have just stated your honor however if you examine these cases that they're relying on there is not a single case that they have cited


this case really is about his entry without inspection in two thousand and one and he's removed on that charges not have i think the question in question is can he attacked the prior unconstitutional


we will hear from the government


of the arguments we make here today were dressed there apparently was no such record i think we should get some credit for it from the inception at jury selection which is part of the trial proper i think we should get some credit for registering the


i respectfully state that there was an indication that none of the jurors knew that it was a death penalty case precautions had been taken up to a certain point there had been some press activity and so on


of bringing a lot of that evidence out on the case in chief and say you know you've done this and you've done this and you've had this problem you've had that problem but it's a new day isn't it mr armstrong and they laid that floor they


i'd like to turn to the notice issue with the court has no further questions on that qualification as you know i think you're wise to address the notice issue if that's very significant issue in this case


their lodge and taken to the pal county jail and he remained there more or less and solitary confinement at that at the county jail for about eight or nine months until until the trial while he was in the jail in july


obviously of that group and anything that happened to them one could reasonably imply that's because of their skin color you have someone who simply associates with people who you think would include me goodman shorter and cheney were murdered


seriously should we take these threats this particularly if you look at this case these threats went on for four years and there was not a single incident where they even say that having them followed and the threats by the motorcycle rider that's a single incident when mr marino


retail stores and we also showed through the testimony of gonna lock one of the executives from stride right that the fact that the shoes were in the


caught on the horns of a dilemma here we have so many people that represent immigrants in the court who are with all due respect to some of them they're really incompetent whereas this woman was an experienced person to have


includes aliens who are convicted at any time a public site has castellanos for the proposition that we have accepted the distinction between definition and consequences of aggravated felony


an opportunity to establish a stop although you have to prove that she is ignorant of the fact that it hasn't been processed and that's the point of the bond requirement she knows she's supposed to bond and she doesn't have


moreover petitioner claims he actually is challenging the final order or however he is phrasing it the problem is he fails to give this court any identify any material error


before you have a chance to do anything else and then you're stuck with an order of removal and you ask then the government can remove you so that's what they say you get again you get it in before the expiration of voluntary departure or you're out of luck because the government just serves it's


to withdraw from voluntary departure and now counsel also raises the issue of motions to reopen that really is not the relevant procedure here


whether this petitioner does or not there is an altar and of course the government is not because there was no isn't the finding with respect to the exemption the government would not assert one way or the other on that issue the exception however does require a different


places but i would like for a moment just to indulge the court to assume for the sake of argument just just for a moment that all of the various influences that duncan wants to draw from


ten k should not allow an employer to set aside its collective bargaining obligations it's in designed to encourage parties to resort to collective bargaining and that's it precisely what is happening here the border leave it to the parties themselves


well because it's the same because it's the same standard if and i guess the point is that even if there is no relaxation hall still requires an air quality analysis and if the question is your


the possession of controlled substance cannot be a controlled substance violation in this case no your honor but mr rendon or at least the record of conviction and specifically the abstract and judgment that the state


finding to be sustained in this manner the board of appeals completely ignored the petitioners arguments regarding his explanation for the


we see it in the form in which it appears i'm not sure whether we can take cognizance of it but let me just to be safe address a couple things he's done his representation of it first is your call as your honor noted it was publication notice this court did much more first


forty because the state court never ruled on the merits of our claim so the district court could review those claims you know i would also point out we did identify three claims in our brief there is an additional claim when mr


implicitly rejected when the fact finder credits the testimony you know the witness will you have to review the testimony in the light most favorable to the government on this there is certainly in review of the factors


says for example you know you're not going to get all the work you're asking for because it's not practical and we don't need agreement requiring the n h l to do it that is the historically accepted procedure for resolving disputes between


no no no you have to give some indication and you know i guess i can even tell you my my staff is i can't even tell you how much i hate the categorical and modified categorical approach i can't even tell you that i


evidence to get to the facts therefore there's increased its pension and and i can you know i'm happy to to go along obviously with whatever the court orders the court wants to suspend for us to try mediation


if they ask for that under this particular statute they're saying it's needed and therefore they can make a decision without and i'm trying to look at what is this the statute i didn't find it in twenty one u s c three forty six eighty two eighty nine you started


yeah her response continues well which was just i can't quantify it in ours but they were continuously beating me which just to me well during that period lewis lasted for several hours they were continuously beating me


the trial judge asked him whether he wanted who he wanted to withdraw from representing and the counsel said he had no preference and so he represented robinson that was very prejudicial to robinson because it


assertion that he had moved to new york soon after or his brother had been killed in february of two thousand and nine but this was a conspiracy that took place entirely in puerto rico there were many defendants involved in this case we don't know why the


really got me that's what this guy was personally on so i followed the district court of the district court thought we were in the room everyone agrees they're in the room and i'm just asking you if they're in the room but we don't know where in the room they are or


they do cite a range of cash holdings so you have the range just to be clear the information that's provided is the minimum and the maximum but i think so so there are two issues there one


in determining that there needs to be a ransom made on a third party was looking at the text of the statute i mean of the guidelines itself as a primary means of determining what the requirement was the seventh circuit went through a fairly


and determine that when you look at the full scope of the purpose and the application of that guideline that it applies to ransom demands being made only to a third party in the seventh circuit noted that it had looked and found not a single case where that enhancement


apologizes to this court for failing to file the certification after sightly the time that the notice of appeal was filed as soon as i found out that the government had failed to file that certification at the time of the appeal we follow the certification the next day as


as well as the what what's different if that's the case if we're putting such a billet once and that we're looking at this case the defendant move to suppress the defendant has the burden of putting in evidence that would show the basis for


police officers standing in sergeant hamilton shoes would have done and in ensuring that question on the perceptions of other experienced police officers who are at the scene observing


district court judge it had been denied in the passport prior case none of the papers in this case he just there were some new arguments that were going to be made soon there's no basis there for this to court to conclude that he knew in day made with a new rule twenty one motion would


days he hasn't gone now we know we've been talking about july thirteenth july fourteenth july twenty second july third lie thirty of the government said in approaching the final revocation here and let's forget about the thirteenth we're


he recorded in booker made very clear that those mandatory guidelines were not recommendations to the sentencing court the sentencing court had to fix it sentence within that range the government agrees that this record judges had to


them it can't just be because it sets a range guideline calculations that's a range of threats a range under the non mandatory regime also what about the mandatory regime makes it fair to say it's fixed in the way that a statute fixes the


and lift his shirt after disobeying the officers commands to stop moving show his hands after they identify themselves as officers under those circumstances your


by construing that two thousand of an order from the f c c to be something that doesn't trigger any obligations by the insurer i realize how it doesn't help you yes if we take that because of the timing but in general wouldn't the principle


and one three one one number one seven one eight one seven j s at all versus the wesley school district of all


then again the government refers to throughout their closing arguments referring strictly to these facebook photos look he can do this look you can't do that and as far as his his capacity and what he was able to do he was able to drive for thirty minutes


fourth and fifth is that the government brings some sort of custody or record from facebook or something like an ip address to connect this address to someone that matters in this case and then extrinsic evidence to corroborate the context of the picture


is a whether some monies owed by the sub contractor by the contractor belonged to the estate of the sub contractor who filed for


restatement ten which says in certain circumstances based on the magnitude of the risk that public media dissemination program at and that the manufacturer does not have to warrant its


why he was in possession of those firearms he stated that there are still people out there who don't like me in other words that he has us those firearms for his own protection and i think that is what makes this case different from other cases that this court has reviewed with respect to this


in constructive possession another avenue is that the drugs were intended for simple possession only and so there is no triggering a felony and i think the court could make that finding because the district attorney's office i'm sorry the


fourteen and deleted it some time after i think actually we do believe we can get more precise and i will say this the defendant admitted that he first downloaded child pornography two to three years earlier it was at


should have been holmes in this case


public figures and the relevant question is whether they volunteered for an activity out of which publicity with which she believes arise and bad is certainly something that happened here in which the


as a basis for contractual argument at the summary judgment stage and so the court rejected that that particular argument in this case and would not allow that to come in a formal alliance in terms of the need in terms


and that would heighten the probative value of the evidence but once the district court ruled that the evidence of the crimes themselves could be excluded no we did not further seek to introduce d


honor yes the nature of the crime is different now one of the things about terrorism leaving the facts in this case is it impacts of a community that the whole point of terrorism that's correct your honor and the terrorism in this


has the information from the computer the exhibits from the computer have been submitted to the court you can watch some of the videos that were attached to this war on machine and then the words go on again it was just that one word straight while bar stranger that was written


to two really interesting articles on on this


said no incentive to to appeal b because it was sufficient did this issue ever come up in the district court proceeding in other words did


seems to have some force to me that that the court does not have deference to to change the medicaid statutory formula the court issued an order in two thousand and ten saying that the commonwealth had to make payments consider


it's your point is it was a given we don't know that there is any instruction we don't know about the instruction once and then it's students in favor of whatever that that that recommendation is even if the judge says well i'm not going to take that is improper factors into account he doesn't


clearly that muhammad was convicted this offense of conviction was possession with intent to distribute without a reference to all of this either risible


been held to have no confrontation clause and i found this case last night and it's an unpublished decision out of the ninth circuit if you're honest would like it i would i would consume it as a twenty eight day well what what the government's point is that in other cases where there have


financing the banks hold on to the title when there's when there's a car or vehicle you know well she didn't know and i don't know how many needs there might be on any of these pieces of property just where she is going


again your honor we're not trying to imply that the defendant did not mean gage in this scheme the question that we're asking them now would be a tough implication the mansons has already been convicted and because he


of the notice of appeal that was filed after the district court's order no no no i'm not talking about the second notice with appeal i'm talking about the first notice of appeal for when the for the first notice of


between first record first licensing action and the administrative records for the biological opinion as judge baugh pointed out at the outset the review proceeds exactly in the same way as it does in this report and that's


long as the terms and conditions of that biological opinion are are met and those actions are undertaken it's our position that safe harbor isn't in effect but i also agree with the government that we need to reach that issue to get to the jurisdictional


yes i would suggest that it be the convictions that we relied on to indicate that he had prior convictions exceeding one meter


there's nothing in the language as your honor was saying there's nothing in the text and this is totally unlike hogarth and totally unlike christic where the statutes were confounding the court even said


subsequent question of whether or not he had probable cause to search the room that becomes an objective test where we can excise from the warrant any possibly tainted statements


to consider by the other defendant i'm trying to think structurally about how all of this operates well we're structurally we're looking at the


virtue of the fact that they entered into what is unquestionably a large conspiracy there's no dispute that this was a large conspiracy and that these fifty five people were part of the conspiracy and so it would you know i understand that there's a tension there but there are efficiencies to trying them together


to this problem and maybe it comes from the department of justice some recognition of the fact that many people are going to sit in jail


wouldn't listen to any evidence as to the conduct of the police and dropping the investigation that alone suggests that a real man for a full and fair hearing would be appropriate but i would contend to you that my client even with the limited opportunity that she had to present


errors the result of the proceeding would have been different a reasonable probability is probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome i think courts oftentimes get a little wrapped up in the but


inconsistent or unclear testimony again that undermines the reliability of the evidence that it can rely on and it's cited to see versus ashcroft for that proposition and we believe that in this case


what the judicial powers are as relates an american citizen and whether the deficient area has the right on an extradition proceedings concerning an american citizen has the jurisdictional right to


bickering with the officers and pushing them and entrancing with them and trying to find out what they knew and how much wiggle room he had in terms of whether he could explain away


is an exception and that at the time that this occurred the taxpayer could not designate to any liability i e in this case a payroll tax period even though on our side


the periods an issue in this case