properly has to consider whether the fee allocation in the agreement is proportional i don't you're just arguing factually that it was proportional or do you say the court is not


the judgment below we argue that the district court had no jurisdiction over this case and so if this court can undo that that is the most meaningful meaningful form of relief here the thing that we need


intended right and i think here too to to look also at the fact that this bad bad action the bad faith and unfair action that was found by the arbitrator which we pled in an


plaintiff was black secondly you had the discriminatory act use of the n word and third interference with a protected activity his right to be on that premise and have drinks watching the world series game so that's exactly why


transaction could never be completed davis also argues that this is part of a broader marketing scheme there's no cases that are on point that he references on this concept of a broader


into a legal issue and he attempts to raise new legal issues that he didn't present to the agency these attempts fail starting first with my most attempts to raise issues he didn't raise below these attempts simply are not permissible rambo


there's more than when one vehicle insured in a single policy and that's an issue of state law that ought to be respectfully decided by a state court when there is a vehicle available to do that how about this chandler case well chandler is


paying at least what medicare would have paid because that is what federal law requires and the form of that and and we are not asking this court to actually go and take a read and change the plan you know one


low that's a change in the law it's a change in law but thank you but then the arkansas supreme court said that even under the earlier version they were going to adopt the later version as a clarification of the earlier version so specific and now says specifically commanded


testimony to be untruthful that's not just inaccurate that's a lie there's a seinfeld episode where george who stands is trying to coach jerry on taking a polygraph and he says remember it's not a lie if you believe it but if you don't


prosecutor to do more than to file and serve not process or a dismissal the plaintiff is positing a duty on the prosecutor to take a further step to ensure that the defendant would be released and yet on the face


cases and the conduct that's alleged here and i think you have to bear in mind also the duty of the circuit attorney to act or not act is a function of state law and the circuit attorney has no


position about the if it's a lie about the existence of an item you don't get paid and he said that's fair so to the extent that there was a need for reasonable testimony which i don't believe there is


confirming that the facts leader is complying with the law not everything that plaintiffs are requesting but that's not according to this court's decisions in our journey and with regard to during and say everything that plaintiffs require


did fox said yeah i suppose we can do it i mean this far as they didn't understand the request was childress said here are people that provide theater captioning the response from the fos was we know about those people we know what they do and if we decide we're going to offer


including whether it was in big us such that the district court would determine the terms as the fact finder the district court can hardly be blamed considering how the case was presented to the court by the parties the parties did not argue here's the ambiguity go to


in effect in the legislature at the administrate procedures act in minnesota so far they require a thirty day notice and comment period and after that period of the if there are no changes then it becomes operative as law under the legislature's grant of that


defendant does not make the example you gave earlier of a statute that would permit someone to be convicted of a crime under an aiding and abetting theory


c eight four six cannot be used to enhance his base of and slava because it is not a controlled substance defense as that term lose defined in guideline for b one point two the


not rise to the level of a force clause of fans that part has been overall but bell also held that the offenses previously in the


counterpart but givens was already decided by the time of the p l o right that's right and so is carlson which i think also could be interpreted to imply that congress chose not to extend remedies


condition which frankly i don't think qualifies as a basis to excuse them from the plea agreement obligation to recommend acceptance anyway as i point out my brief that didn't show a lack of cooperation with probation which is


the acting director claim the appointments clause claim there is no case after that as hell but an acting official state longer than the constitution allowed and let alone invalidated agency


come forward with what she was experiencing


only provided a generic description of mr bradley being a black male in his mid thirty's short stocky wearing a baseball backwards baseball


taser on her again if you feel physically threatened well yes or from his perspective this is what he perceived one he was told that they were violent or that the mother was valid


imprisonment than probation and the court noted in sampson that parolees had that diminished expectation of price severely diminished not merely reduced which is what the green bay by the case holds it is severely diminished


zero three objection it does not it clearly does not on the plain face of rule four zero three or under five twenty two l of the bankruptcy code eleven u s c five point two zero five twenty two also as you have to file an objection or the property is deemed


today and it would be timely under four zero zero three b two we did not do that and haven't done that yet because we are of the firm believe that our objection filed within the thirty days the adversarial proceeding was in fact an


in all of the assets that she has listed and that those values are quite minimal ice it's like eighty five thousand dollars less than what is actually here in addition she knows that the money given pursuant to the grant didn't


inferences that disregarded what i contend repellant contends are reasonable as yours clause doesn't your client ok so we have the video we have the video we have certain timing that happened and we have certain clothing that when


subtract two hundred eighty two days from july twelfth of two thousand and twenty you were see you get to a projected satisfaction date of october fourth two thousand one thousand which is what the form shows and the


days and you know as to the vesting issue you're correct again we're not there at the time that he filed the petition he had not earned in the conduct on he did not have any good conduct time that was available to be forfeited and so


if this case wearing arizona state court it too would have applied colorado substantive law because the attorneys fees provision is part of colorado's tort law it is it's substantive law including its cap on non economic then


being a victim or of such a predatory attack at all and she didn't determine that taylor could be double celled no she took well i take that back i take that back back in two


assets that they were selling and finally the poster scrapbooks the district court seemed to agree that those were the personal property of bill graham those were not deliberate and but but then said applying the wrong standard the wrong legal standard of conversion said that in absence of


know he wasn't and that's because the district court agreed with this forty eight there's no such rule but he didn't allow them to amend because he thought it would be futile because he really was if you had to pick more like a can begin to put but i take it under your view of the


the guild and make a determination ultimately as to whether or not and i just want to i want to go through this i don't think there's at least i don't think there's any doubt that the evidence does not show


this the standard a little bit because i mean at the end of the day the district judge who made all those rulings that you're citing ultimately looked at all the facts and awarded


attorneys fees that he did and while your argument well you support your argument with factual matters in the orders and on the record the the the the fact is we're looking at what the judge


the acquisition has to be happening when it lands in the i message server because it's not going anywhere apple has it it's stored there it's not in temporary storage before that when this first phone directory look up happens it's not being sent it's


represented the second holding is because the court did not act upon that that it continued forward in included all time periods up to the trial the government as they got response or our views or tries to distinguish


was negligent i'm not saying the attorney was ineffective i'm just saying that they're rich period to be a difference in strategy but let's assume we get beyond the the waiver what's your


oh i was going to discuss the qualified immunity analysis previously and what you said finally you and the villain's issue to address the qualified immunity analysis misters of all is right to notice upon the rejection of his mail was


on the the it's sort of a variation of that bias question because the the the government proposed this instruction it was number sixteen that the defendant assaulted the victim by intentionally striking or


what my client did in this case with the click of a mouse is distinguished from what another person does with their click of the mouse just that the difference is a fifteen year mandatory minimum then we're looking at at


so it was clear within the membership that there were multiple other people involved and certainly more than the three or more but his knowledge is the relevant so your honor there was also the issue on


next step is does the legislative history show clear intent to not allow multiple punishments and on that number one i would again point out that the burden is it is it is your honor and it's the defendant's


the proceeds would not go to the county regardless because it would go to whoever is is making the improvements whoever is building the subdivision the money is never going to go into the counties pocket if the county was in the business of constructing subdivisions


created during the relationship and the contract that was handled by other provisions of the contract such as the patent provision and the ownership provision


court affirmed the district court on all causes of action and specifically the ones that are not appealed to here and then with respect to the speech claim we believe it's nonexistent for the same reasons in our brief we think the


case in terms of the the position that we have taken if we did take position that if the courts only jurisdiction is is to modify that a korean or paragraph fourteen


please the court my name is fred peterson from mesh park and rush out in tucson arizona represent nine joint debtors who are proponents of a joint plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court in september of two thousand


mendez and the other officers present and that was directly relevant to what then happened in the medical facility where there were no other witnesses who were present it went directly to sergeant mendez's version of events that mr


didn't look at all as i understand it maybe the other side can point me to it to really what we normally look at in strength of the law as to whether is it generic is it descriptive is it suggestive is it fanciful an arbitrary to the court make any


their mark also regarding geographical distances the court ignored that stone creek had over six hundred thousand dollars worth the cells in the bomb time trading territory now stone creek has over two hundred million dollars and sells bearing the stone creek mark


however you never asked your expert to make calculations in light of that how did the district court abuses to discretion i mean that well i think that your honor briefly touch upon it is the standard of section


march where the same goods are the same the district court concluded after four days of testimony there's absolutely no competition here we have the consumers who need to be tested for likelihood of confusion shopping within a two hundred mile radius or within a radius


admits that he received a grievance that he read that letter that here yes all that and he says that the letter wasn't attached rate and so the court said that if that really was the case mr prettiness had multiple ways of seeking that response and there is no evidence here that she sought out that response


now he's now serving a sentence pursuant to a judgment and when was that judgment entered by the court that would that would be the second amanda judgment conviction when i was entered if you don't so if


why isn't that an argument to make in the context of the other litigation that your client has and in other words you would argue to the judges in those cases that this was a compulsory disclosure not a voluntary disclosure and it


wait we don't consent we want these returned and then one circuit said the evidence that the government game during those five days would not have to be suppressed later on so i think his chief problem is that he voluntarily complied here i


circumstances here because according to long that's your case the proposed new plaintiff's claims will not be barred by the statute of limitations absent amendment so did once judge seaboard


behalf right before the case management conference seven months goes by in october of two thousand and eleven judge seaboard entered summary judgment and entered final judgment as we all know the case was appealed came to this court this


december two thousand and thirteen moves to amend there's no mention of piero there's no mention that he's undertaking an effort to find a new class representative in september of two thousand and fourteen leave to amend is granted


would trigger the statute and as soon as he were placed in the custody and in this case at the federal institution then under your view of thirty five eighty five


good morning presiding judge tallman members of the panel my name is mike tierney i mean assistant u s attorney for the eastern district of california johnson here six double credits and he's not entitled to that credit he already received


one set of factual circumstances the idea that b o p has that policy statement as an expression of how to enforce primary jurisdiction and when it transpires that has application in a wider sense


bureau of prisons for all the time that he's with the marshal even though he's not at the bureau of prisons facility so that's what the statute refers to when it talks about it designation or detention


there's not enough there to support support is that we are doing i think that would be the same thing as the second point which is that sense is a motion for summary judgment it should have been granted that wasn't very clear in your brief but let me what do you want us to do


wrap it up ok one thing i'll make a very long sentence if i may i think a lot of the confusion here is that we tend to focus on certain things which you had a duty to did do this particular thing


they can think of vacating the dismissal as to integrity your honor yes the allegations with respect to avelox there was no motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds that appeal is here properly before this


different specific distinct arguments that were made in the district court and i don't want them to get like all smashed into the disparity so i want to make sure i cover all of them but the spirity has come about it appears


maybe simply as a district courts have become dissatisfied with the guideline but what has happened so before two thousand and ten i think it's pretty clear especially before twenty two thousand and seven that methamphetamine purity very


so in terms of harm to the person and harm to society there epidemiology studies that were cited at linked in the sentencing memorandum that were under the court's consideration for instance methamphetamine and crack cocaine used to be


court found that therefore mr patten was liable for basically everything that happened after the flight and i think we would concede that is if this happened while mr patton was driving mr harris away in the car we wouldn't be here it would be of appropriately applied


immediately within the context of the robbery but it's certainly within the scope of the robbery because they are chasing that's our position that that the term immediate to apply it in a circumstance to say that it must be instant to the actual robbery


cases if if not this one when you have a really clear waiver that's followed tribal law then when i think i'll see the rest of my time to they


bakker and in that we have in in our complaint we have asked the tribal court to declare that that is an illegal contract under both federal law and tribal law now if and the


and i do want to finally emphasize that it's not necessary for the tenth circuit to take up the legality of the contract if this court determines that there's a colorable basis for tribal court jurisdiction and second that the exhaustion


law right create a beneficiary who's the beneficiary trust is created for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers involved in the transaction and so that's where the pretty concept comes in


could not support this enhanced man by his statements about not knowing that the drug the box in his apartment was methamphetamine you know you could because that is part of his defense part of his defense i was an active participant in the drug deal i


again i think what's important are the specific facts of this case his testimony compared with the testimony of the two police officers and agent kennedy and


the you want to valley indian reservation the ute indians that are now the federally recognized tribes are a group of huge indians that were given


prosecuted for having done so asserted that his rights were time immemorial like we're hearing here today in this court found that to be untenable simply because the terminations act made these mixed bloods no longer part of the huge tribe and forbade them from


they can that they already have these rights so when approached by tribal law enforcement i mean does that really put them on notice that they don't have the right or


goes the reason that this is a collateral claim is because we're not asking the district court to jump in and decide the issues in the


think this person has been arrested then giving ample time and so that's a police action in ample time is given so that mr harris can look to see if you can find that plate you're the gentleman on the internet which he did and then it was two days later that another


earlier or was attached twelve hours earlier anything could happen in that twelve hour span we agree with that anything could have anything but our position is that all of the arguments that could possibly happen or all of the facts that could possibly even occurs


a difference but there still had to be shown the violation of two and a quarter i think it's a fact that would have to be taken into account so the jury could decide on that if he said that he forgot i think there still has to be evidence that it was two and a quarter and that can be


possible that he thought it may refer to other things but i would also note that when he's when deputy short eventually finds the blasting cap and his requesting assistance he describes mr ray as i've got a crazy


report where she said she never saw that mr while bogle was hit by the cane at all if the judge has a choice between two competing options and they're both reasonable then


i the united states supreme court in june of two thousand and eighteen the issue about what is a material misrepresentation has come to the fore i think that's what ignited and sparked this whole thing in mr miles


see this is his second quorum notice petitions yes correct there's a doctrine called abuse of the record and it seems to me tell me where i'm wrong that every claim you're making now has either been previously resolved in a router


a factual finding that was clearly a lot erroneous by the district court officer dollar mentions that there have been reports of vandalism theft does not mention burglary the government in its argument during the suppression hearing brings up


our understanding is that mr watts is not currently an australian that he is in utah now and so i frankly have a question and i had a question for some time that i have been asking the australian lawyers with no real clear answer as


me even if it was the novo the underlying factual findings are so strong that there really isn't an opportunity to for any kind of a reversal of the no basis i mean you


you in principle to come back to the your that this is a pretty significant guideline shift and if the evidence looks to council like it was going to change something that was really going to be valid then sure there there may be a circumstance in


think i'm giving you this medical policy these are our internal primera criteria but what you want you to determine as i understand it is based on current prevailing medical standards and


society not to confine them outside and it's very if you look your honour's at what the child says and what the parents say about why they have admitted her and the child says to learn and use coping skills for


well the court did say i find that obstruction of justice is appropriately aired which i find was unfounded in fact and was that your objection that was the district court cited you know ok and the court also said that the whole defense


of those things at the time as shown on the video tape isn't he stuck with both of those i think he stuck with this affidavit his affidavit that he turns into the magistrate judge says that she admitted to kicking her


delay the trial so all the relevant people are going to be there otherwise it's a waste of going to be presented some of the same evidence multiple times and it was a period of what six months or so maybe


essentially is are you making a different argument blow i mean here than you made below in the sense that now you're challenging this and finding error under eight seven as opposed to eight six that's my question so what i would say is


if we had let him out of jail can't is there somewhere in the record where it looks like the court considered that yes sure there is i would start with


concurrent deprived proceeding but the problem is that pressure would have happened whether there was a criminal case or not the d j s and the pearly wouldn't it wouldn't have happened because there was no criminal case there would have been any pressure


we have some of it through the post conviction records required to discontinue her relationship with a man that was ripping her child that's not exactly an unreasonable request by the stadium or trying to reunify the child with her mother so


when that i think the fairest way to say it is that the number that mr fall provided was about fifteen or twenty percent fifteen or twenty percent higher then i think the number being the use


ranges grandma sycamores is all made will within those ranges and ranges is the only way the doctor has he could describe it because like i said it's not an exact number it has to vary it d varies depending on the elevation and all sorts of other factors


to calculate the amount of u s bakeries profits on a crop it were sold through false advertising the law is what in titles me to those profits i don't have to prove causation


honor i just wanted to make clear that even if i did not for any reason prove literal falsehood that why causative confusion is sufficient and i proved likelihood of confusion i didn't need a survey for a


was there and he way that issue and that issue necessarily includes the issue that the court reference so the question becomes for a waiver how specific do you have to get the have to get to this subsidiary issue to the subsidiary issue to the subsidiary issue or you can can you


test as set forth in a number of cases is whether the interests favoring closure outweigh or heavily outweigh the interests of the public can access the information and there isn't that require a case by case determination and


was the st attempt was kind of as the car was as the officers car was rolling and she kind of pokes her head out and he says get back in and then he he walks to the car and she tries to do that again and says oh i live here they


immediately gets out of his car and walks up to the driver side window and it is at that point that he testified that he saw that the passenger was not wearing her seat belt well the officer came up and designer


to remain in the car up to my house my wife is getting out to go in the house is that properly characterized for our purposes as tries to get out well but there's more to what happened while


told mr kramer that he wanted to file an appeal and you're saying he was interested in finding an appeal and i don't know how much daylight there is between those two but it does seem like there's a little bit of difference in emphasis there well and i think if that if that were


at all or any sort of racially discriminatory oppressive environment that she allegedly suffered from this all come down to one comment and she admits she knows of no other comment one comment in


how he proceeded one to help the state create evidence against his clients and to including in the past this waiver and it would make the point that


knowing what you're left with the fact that the defendant as i understand the ranking of the premises in your arguments you have to be left with the argument that no


new ages and eighteen on top of that that it would come up well the other side of that your honor is so should the ski area have expected exactly the same thing because we had to adopt what


that navigate considered experience so that it's not even an issue and to wrap up i would just simply say common sense and logic and the information that integris


class representative and that you're about to file an action and that you have some imminent injury that you're facing well we have present injury because we won't be able to represent


dismissal or to impose other conditions or maybe to postpone the decision until the court rules on class action or other pending motions so my question is if we


information about someone who was making these statements and that he could help them build a case against him you know if only he were out and able to do that so he was released he began contacting mr parnell


defendant thinks they should have gone to his own expert said that his symptoms were in full remission and he had been taking medication for three years his expert also said that none nothing about his


rule that there has to be a motive to lie if it's going to be a prior consistent statement here that motive to lie existed as soon as law enforcement started yelling at daniel do you want to be a witness or do you want to be a defendant do you want to be prosecuted


comparative or suffers from an up dominant hernia and can't do that either but only for a fixed period of six months are they proper comparatives or not regardless of


jury to find intentional discrimination i don't know that that's a preponderance i know at trial of the plaintiff burden is to show with a so it summary judgment what we're really trying to figure out from circumstantial evidence is whether there's a reasonable inference


you're instructing them about a preponderance of the evidence standard where you have they have to determine that it's more likely than not that discrimination was at work right i mean those are just two different things right


he hadn't been told the elements any possible defenses or any lesser included and again your honor the question about well just saying you know an attorney might know defense is that you don't know is that enough that's not enough this


if somebody dies early there are premiums in our the reserve fund that can be used to take care of the normal expectation that somebody may live longer is


sheriff was aware of that required a policy to prevent and constitutional conduct by its officers while not only hostage because deputy hall denies knowing that mishap


from moral are very we did have that bullet analyzed by one of the world's preeminent ballistics person dr bennett onload who met was able to measure the size of the bullet and determine it to be at least to use term i'm sorry


in the absence of some evidence of where mr norris is which is already provided by the law enforcement officers the vehicle and her perspective from trooper reeves point or vantage point and


runs away you say he's shooting and she doesn't report and i heard the gunshots right next to me in other words that norris is standing next to her nor does she ever see him in front of her and the st time that she


point these facts can be disputed and the result the judge makes findings on those facts and that those findings would determine whether or not this person


in disputed certain of the evidence may be hearsay and the jury is the proper body for assessing the credibility of the witness on consider upon consideration of the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the plaintiff


analogizing this case to the bennett the to its case we think it's the same and that was the case that involved sexual interaction providing alcohol and of the types of things that would be that could


about how to respond and in this case i think she was in the same position otherwise she would have run out of the room or as i said in the brief maybe smacked the doctor but there was confusion because it was like oh yeah you are supposed to be touching me i don't think i've ever


to community health center here that's the same thing that was reports of this and a failure from them to do something about it and if it's the betting of you know bringing somebody who has a history of sexual misbehavior


do what no other court has done set aside a settlement agreement because of so called clear sailing and kicker provisions even though the district judge district judge to choose to carefully considered those terms as well as each of the rule twenty three dollars factors and found the settlement was


claim based on newly discovered evidence if it meets the standard and it's the end it establishes that this new evidence the conviction would not have occurred that i don't have the statute in front


he was the strongest witness they had at the time to my testimony it was embarrassing it was on a not understandable according to the district court judge who heard it i didn't


questions by the jury as a whole asking to see certain evidence i think one of them requested a transcript of certain testimony and so forth so the so in that intervening period there were some additional other questions just about the evidence and not pertaining to this issue with george or


wait a minute let's restart this process let's apply the two thousand southpark says that you what you should have done was to seek another amendment of the license to to either get rid of the fish requirement our to modify it in some way and


has clean water act authority the fish and wildlife service and the national marine fisheries service they have authority under section eighteen of the federal power act sixteen u s c


the testimony of the summary witness in the presence of the lawyer and the defendant before the lunch break where the prosecutors sought to elicit from the summary


court whatever what if we applied plain error review and there was no objection judge are going to be here for the ninth day of trial you'll have to proceed in my absence when i think it's a completely different thing if you are talking about


be any argument that a district court judge sworn to uphold the constitution doesn't realize he shouldn't start trial without the accused and lawyer being there i mean the


when his wife decided that she was going to divorce him and when he was released from prison in january one thousand nine hundred there were ongoing trouble keeping him and his soon to be ex wife who had difficulty getting access to his children and he had made


alcohol other than the expert opinion the record does not reflect that it had been a factor in the commission of the murder that he says and this is what i really want to get at except for the solicited opinions of the defendants expert that the defendant's


more than sixty jury trials capital jury trials under his belt spent there's more than one hundred pages of transcript here talking about this particular issue and ultimately what the tribal court did was it found that


created whether or not we think they're grounded in text the eleventh amendment is one example that comes to mind we're not free to say you know what the eleventh amendment doesn't say what you say it says so we're really not going to follow it this time around we think you got it wrong in


flatly prohibits it and you say you weren't able to buy it if you link up one and two you think that's conclusory were respectfully judged jordan the district court held the opposite both these intervenors could purchase these devices


hatfill described it it's another thing for them to get up and give much more testimony regarding that that information that answer yes thank you so looking at this record as a whole and again


very impulsive individual and that's what sears says that trial counsel should do is even in the light of negative information you try to turn that into something that's been official for the trial for the trier of fact in this this case your honor


state's case the state doesn't deny she could have testified to non statutory mitigating circumstances their cases onder stand it is there's so much bad that would have come in and that a reasonable and tourney would have said as


statement we know the state courts credited his testimony as true and accurate we know that if he had been fully informed of all this evidence he would not have used there's not a


hand i guess maybe i've used that word i don't i don't mean to load that word with too much significance it just me all i mean to say is that given the hey be a standard that you have to overcome yes it seems to me that the evidence needs to be willing to use a technical legal


pointed out earlier when they stop stop it's shady acres before the three men split up so creel and arnold could have had knowledge i'm sorry discussing i didn't know that i didn't say it because i don't know it but may have implied


part of his questions of matters so as not to put in whatever amount he would not had to hit the right tax button because things are taxed at different rates yet you know groceries and and tobacco and alcohol and then hit the right button to get the sales take the


our third case for this morning is mark against foster


trial judge who heard the witnesses are all the other evidence the government gave a lengthy presentation in britain about why over this six year conspiracy the defendant could conceivably be


to be sure this contradicts his assessment of the evidence as showing normal functioning of the hands and arms but even if we give the adjudicator the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply conclude the objective evidence was a strong


her allegations with regards to the work issue the claim it worked as a claim to prepare at anthem and the male j did not evaluate whether this was a mail sorter or claims


the that it was agreeing with the probation office in this particular case that there was no evidence that it had any of its own independent analysis of either the thirty five fifty three a


opening argument there is no question before the court today about whether or not the determination not to pay for surgery was a violation of the f r i say the only issue before the court today is whether or not plaintiff claim is timely


your concern has to do with the first question i asked mr duncan which is burden of proof if burden of proof off makes a difference in these cases where you have you know a treating physician you've got somebody with a fairly lengthy litany


and i've completed my document there is constant ventilation going so first of all the atmosphere is not going to change but we don't take we don't presume that page sixty ninety six of the record says a monitor comes after us always search


maneuver around the pallets and so it seems to me there is a jury question about whether it was a breach of the duty to maintain a safe premises for the gas station not to anticipate that people


the bank you wouldn't have paid it doesn't make any sense they have an alleged facts to push their claim across the line from conceivable to plausible yes they claim that they wouldn't have paid and the original was sure if


the motivation you see that he would be nice to have the dock workers in this market unit because it would be easier for you to whip that the board has decided that that motivation has had to throw


bargaining context as a union we would be seeking to address that issue for before the truck drivers through collective bargaining additionally the truck drivers are licensed and have to pay their own


write you can affirm on any basis however there should be proof is offered in fact the statute doesn't just that doesn't define public place to include jails there is some case law on that but the judge never made that determination the government never came in


circumstances for not looking at what sort of conviction the underlying or what could sort of crime the underlying conviction constitutes when looking at what the defendant actually did but nor did any actually know


question but that's simply again not the case here there's no indication that when mr freeman made his initial motion to proceed pro se he was really just trying to create an appellate issue indeed he was quite forceful in insisting that he genuinely wish to represent himself this is a


the and the judge doesn't really spell out what that means and then see i don't know if it was you or whoever the a u s a was in your says mr ciralsky has no potential conflict the judge there says right so you have some


institution that where he can speak to serve his needs as a reclassified minimum security community based prisoner so he's actually received the relief that he requested long


good morning may it please the court i'm peter henderson i'm here on behalf of terrence craig's terence graves was sentenced to three concurrent one hundred forty months terms when the statute only provides for a maximum term of one hundred twenty months


beginning in the nineteen thirty c however attitudes changed the prohibitions fall away so it hasn't always been true that male and female breaths work were perceived differently and at nice to breastfeeding


convention against torture or withholding of removal in the alternative to remain the case to the agency for with instructions to consider applications for relief on the merits of the exercise a stretching of justin status can political asylum and


significance here and that's something that both congress as holder acknowledges and in re s k there'd be a case twenty three i n n decision one thirty six which was cited by the immigration judge he actually had a very good discussion of this if the government's


apply they didn't say may apply and then they ask then they hypothetically switch the burden of proof to mr jaba taste to show by clear and convincing evidence that the bar doesn't apply that turns a man's head their job is to decide if a


proceeding not a criminal case that the evidence the evidentiary issue concerning identity was still subject to a fourth amendment analysis on a motion to watch so i think that in in the application of their case


nobody ever renews anything before a judge lee correct correct and judge court had not only the motion but there were the doc that did the depositions were given were drawn hundred eighty two hundred pages of peace with about twenty some odd exhibits so he did have all that when he made


judge did immediately deal with it by substantially objection by excluding this one argument he might have dealt with it by declaring a mistrial that was the risk which he later emphasized i


have regarding this information


under that hypothetical it would be the sentence your honor would be what it would be the sentence the difference between the two my question is why does one person get life from the other another person is actually here where they're both murderers


the underlying documents been put into the record at the district court then we wouldn't be here arguing over this and the lack of these documents that's plainer and it impugns the judicial system not to have them so we'd ask that


who comes in and says oh we didn't respond if the government comes to them and says we're going to assess a two hundred thousand dollars family against you do you want to do an administrative appeal before we send you a bill and start collection actions a diligent taxpayer is going to take


b we have no lease for that site we don't have that agreement they ask what's happening mr mcmahon says there's some clearing activities take going on out there but it's all under rosemont sixpence


kind of observation bleeding looks like it's controlled cut doesn't seem to need stitches he's talking to people and he seems ok why is he not entitled to convey that information


started up calling the government agents to basically talk about all of the evidence that was obtained in this very broad investigation the breath of the investigation helped them because if they focused on this conspiracy the answer would have been very deaf and that's what they should have


easily corrected if we're allowed to replete that it's just a matter of the technical wording of the complaint and that's something we can easily fix what is it you want her suggestion was that we might not have clearly alleged concurrent


financial method for dealing with the existence of their contract ok think oh thank you thank


reinstate their lot to me your honor i understand i'm at fault and opposing counsel is going to tell you what a talented attorney and i should have known better you're on but the punishment has to fit the crime on one of the


there is a sanction around there is a section all right and i understand it's very ok well thank you very much and thanks to both counsel will take the case under


originally requested for medical attention and if she kind of which followed that procedure he would have been distracted the doctor would've been called in to a team or been put together he would've been taken to the hospital but he had multiple hours of needless pain and


him testified that they had a legitimate safety concern or other reason for refusing to act to help him not explicitly the way you're putting it what they


bucket scratching their way liberate killing each other over taking slaves we'd had all that information we certainly could have convinced the district court that there was no enterprise here


result proceeding would have been different and this judge aptly put it whether evidence is favorable and material is quote legally simple but factually complex


and he sees what appears to be a valid title issued by the state of illinois for this motorcycle and so he says hands off you know that's enough to allow this to go forward


purposes and for educational purposes i don't make that distinction they do so do use a reasonable for the hospital to insist that its residents be eligible for


claim that occurred in the state court that's what martinez intravenous speak to and that's exactly what we have in this case so we really just have to decide whether illinois insufficiently and now guests to indiana bring this case within the brown


prisoner right because indiana requires you know it's a no claim splitting state here in illinois i guess the state supreme court allows claims splitting if you've got a strictly a claim that can be decided on


independent contractors need fall under the word employee but your opponent has argued that if the term labor leasing firm really refers to something like a temp agency or someone


satisfy their have an entry burden of showing that this saves money because it approaches as an average cost approach and that's under the e e o c guidelines that kind of justification


may change for unit employees that they will be hired by the new entity perhaps in your different terms and they also know expansion of operations which could lead go to the location and availability of work for unit


indicates that the items on that list of schedules are relevant now when you're going on in just one point of clarification unless i misunderstood i don't think anything or any schedule was actually turned over by the employer through the course of their duties i think the


at the apple and i do think it's fair to say at some point if we're raising uncertainty about what the scope of disclosure should have been had isn't it fair to ask shouldn't we put the burden of the uncertainty on the wrongdoer who's wrong cause the uncertainty and


that the standard for demonstrating relevance is very low the standard for indicating specificity is very low this is not a high burden for the union to clear the union in this instance made no attempt to do that i think that is the type of decision that would have no impact whatsoever on


can find that he had any intent to prevent a communication whatsoever and i think that's what the record clearly ship to get to judgment dealt quite with my question and then again if you could past that if you can here and that says judge jones found it you cannot find that she


it please the court my name is harold a chamber one and i represent positive stepping services think i would like to reserve five minutes of my time for


in my side for all these years there is no evidence on this record of anything similar in this case there is no evidence of retaliation based on union affiliation that would be speculative in conjecture it is only adding


been filed regarding i ring those three workers and they were coming on monday after the biggest reason is bearing down on i think it was i think it's a combination of all three of the appropriate thing we discussed what did they record substantiates


there's no more questions thank


property so minor in three did not address weight use and wadding where there are very specific regulations i'm point it didn't make any decision there but it really is critical that for the discretionary in function exception


why isn't looking at it as a claim worse i mean the question of the extent of damages and how to calculate damages and something that may be the subject of your expert testimony record is is different than whether there is a


simple concept don't if your doc don't refer people down the hall for testing in a lab for example that you have a financial interest that was the whole concept here is


in one section but amid said another generally presumed that it acts intentionally and purposely the case you cite scripps howard for that supporting your proposition really involve the


and since that was over a valid objection they had every opportunity to present the information at the time of sentencing we argued this court's declare case as more recently enforced incest paid us they do not get on really


did what those letters contained the fact that it was an attempt to coerce a settlement with the bank excuse me we're looking at the initial and then the later measured report what do you say in here


that flowed from that so the whole idea was that the contractor didn't perform according to the contract i'm surprised you don't read concern or as really related to that situation where


those those disputes are not they're not they're not genuine dispute that would change the outcome of this case well that's a different that means they're immaterial that doesn't mean we have jurisdiction over them right that that is correct but just court can also decide


should be made within a specific context of the case this case has unique facts and the gone to the general gone language should not be used and but that does not double in judge hardman's question of if we're going to go into more specific facts don't


terms of what triple bottom knew it was reported over the radio over the state police radio that he had violated a restraining officer trip about it was fully aware of that and he didn't have to see the restraining order to have


that and so it was way too late and was prejudicial because we have to retake all that discovery that would have to be completed and then the cost of then preparing for a whole different set of issues what about futility would you address that the court said that


a former client or something like that well i'll answer that by making the first name of the that's why injunctions in these cases are so important because a lot of times you don't know we may


think you pointed out what was wrong with that during your questioning of fed sattar which is that that is not consistent with a common understanding of the word consummate it's not consistent with black's law the definition of consummate and it's not consistent with the way consummate


fitzgerald specific which comes after host specifically addresses this issue it specifically addresses the question of whether bad faith or objective and reasonable this should be the standard for imposing peace on people in their personal capacity and it said that the right balance is objective


if as most states did they they simply wanted to adopt the legislature adopt the model act all you do is take the model lackwit it in so someone that the legislature removed it took an act to remove the second sentence well they generally typical


is it your view that you know i still think of the as question of knowledge as being a faction issue is your point that it was so much available information that that array is really new we are clearly should have known that


ur first case is united states of america versus james bailey slater


prosecutor alone or was that valid comment only because of mr bailey snyder's counsel's argument that he wouldn't buy a home on the word of the two officers


it comes with sort of a mild presumption of correctness book i'm eager to hear you know if you can point to what's wrong with those opinions of me here i think you're honor if you look at maybe the dissent in one of the opinions where and i believe it was wearing there was one of


person was one on off the road taken by paramilitary troops into their vehicle and held at gunpoint with an explicit threat that they were going to end that person's life that peace isn't comparable to here where there's only


my clients can engage on the one one on one conversation inside the zone that they would like to that's why not because of the face of the statue right this is a facial challenge i understand your answer to relate to the designee of the city saying


presume a narrowing construction of a law to which it's fairly susceptible rob so i to the extent that there's been that interpretation of the terms demonstrate and picket why wouldn't we give it its its


narratives in the in the petitioners claim saying before the asylum office that he was not homosexual later changing his claim to say that he was i don't believe that our case contains such similar


differentiate who will be targeted and so the board of looking at the case and looking at the findings of fact by the immigration judge found a clear error simply in that finding that it


jarvis who he's not he's a bishop and he came and he testified on behalf of mr landis toy and the judge said this met this man this pastor came and he laid his


think what they what they're concerned about is that there are alternatives that would not involve placement of the disco they as at the location involved with amounts


if if the burden was on your client to invoke race to to kata where is there in any of this record that he said to the panel wait a second i object either in the appeal or at the time


they could certainly lead one to say well that looks like what's going on dean is male just did not like here in probation he wanted to hear expulsion and we were going to run this obstacle course and tell that's where ended so we on a motion to


or had twelve contraband free bellman's and again to the extent that there is a question as to whether or not you know what the significance of twelve contraband movements or ten days is that should be resolved in favor of my


so there's there's a there's a duration issue there is a holding him there in the first instance once but just a question of the lapse issue and there is a duration issue and i think those are all very important i would very briefly like to talk about


defendant's conduct is judged against the relevant standard and that is the eighth amendment and there are lots of cases that put them on notice young young being among them but their being many others lots of cases that put them on notice that that the conditions and holding him without justification and holding


use your phrase let's assume that mr genteel form a new corporation and that corporation had the purpose of pursuing a penny stock operation and let's assume that there


head when you said this was an ops and we know this is a complicated situation the mixing the matching the generic the elements the dividing into extortion in and robbery and


because i don't know the answer


what happened after the year it will all right let's let's start shooting the argument you just made now let's look at the time frame between when the f d a rule and in fact if i recall the chronology here the f d a denied the petition and perhaps some


in this other area will somehow benefit the position something about so i understood that mr mark kelly's testimony was that mr allen met the requirements satisfy the requirements of the job he didn't specifically say you don't need


he was discriminated against versus the person who got the job are you saying your client did not know that situation that giuliano was acting supervisor i'm don't believe so the time there


believe was an assault where the officers conducting the booking interview so they had the knowledge in their heads of what the nature of the case was and we all agree that this wasn't a booking this was an interview leading


devices particular social media accounts in this day and age is a part of almost any criminal case and a holding that requires officers to perform a no from asking these types of questions in the booking


tell us how you arrived at the idea that this is the ordinary and customary amount well i don't know that we even reach that at this stage your honor because i know i'm talking about things that have been reached at this stage and i'm


here that the court the court nonetheless granted those wiretap applications with this omitted information and we can just look at the facts in the first wiretap affidavit and determine that there is also a problem cause a necessity in that regard i think it's


the the item is not the way it's supposed to be handled right it's not but unfortunately you can't eliminate every time it took you to tell you passengers by the way when they board i mean this is a pleasure cruise


radiation is and we talk about the release of energy all the time i think the problem that crawford is is trying to identify here or are somehow make into a problem is the idea


to be prepared and executed in order to effect a complete resolution consequently the theory of a cell of an agreement never took


little girl was respectful and compassionate and completely painless i asked the questions i had to ask that young lady and i moved on with respect to the mother a little bit different in the twelve year old boy never testified additionally there's no but there's no point in the record with


analyzed by the f b i when there was no proof of that whatsoever she actually gave the curative instruction and i know you think that it should have been a mistrial do you want to make your time's a misstep do you want to address any of your other challenges now if you would i think you've got the jew don't want to you don't want to


were required to address them with a local criminal court judge probably determined that the accusatory instrument information laid out sufficient probable cause to proceed


of bringing a constitutional claim or a tort claim of malicious prosecution it's not a determination on the merits that supports it and that was the statute of limitations based dismissal


stations they were more comfortable doing it to get this done for county executive steve levy however when county executive steve balonne came and well let me backtrack a little


very into economic development he made a policy decision i would prefer to move it to another location he didn't say you can't build it on conquered them he asked them to explore alternative sites he did decide he wasn't signing that lease


argument because we understand that two reasons your honor want that is not how we understand that to be raised in the complaint and that's not how mr cutler has couched it in his brief seat is couched


that's different from maybe you didn't say most but with respect to whether intent is required to prove a deprivation of first amendment rights others the ninth circuit case of o s u student alliance the dicta from judge newman as you mentioned in


in support of the statue first the wellbeing of the child care providers themselves second the availability of daycare to the public and third the polity of


underlying claim itself or other claims under which the court has supplemental jurisdiction as long as the action was brought as a class action giving catheters diction if it turns out that it was


derivative were a direct line on dilution that's a separate issue than the just and yes yes it does i'm also puzzled by why it is a conflict that mr schmitz came up with this idea for it was a good idea from the beginning worked on the


claim was based on the placing of mr rowley in the cell and the testimony that was provided by mr ali described his placement into the cell from the front of the of the desk as being


statistically the experts that took a look at it it's a ninety five percent statistic match of those two things going up yes they used to where when this case was first brought everybody knew about or had learned or were learning about the warehouse activities


where the midwest premium was paid the midwest premium is only paid in the wee real world so people in the warehouse l m e market they don't care they're never they're not paying the midwest premium they're paying whatever the prices


know i don't know if i said some that they can and i'm just wondering because you know i think that's one of the facts that i didn't appreciate on the first go around was all of these documents that you're now referencing that's not to criticize you it may be


by aluminum three to reject claims that were made to the panel in aluminum three and implicitly in effect rejected right because it's i mean i didn't hear you i didn't hear you


details given to the police officer other cases where twelve b six motions are granted a situation where police officer arise arrives at a home pursuant to a domestic violence call the complainant less is a wife and i do remember


contract is to go forward and it's those difficult reductions that that this court would set aside so we're not an environment where you say well if we set aside this contract you fall back to a lower rate which is typical


don't it didn't say it never said how close some are in the area that was it that's what that's what they had to connect him to that robbery to that particular robbery so even even even proving his guilt


you i just have a couple of things one getting to the government's argument that there would have had to be more than a forty nine percent error rate in the list extents thing to make to understand


expectations of the party i don't know if there's ever a contract that could be limited to its literal terms because we all we all have a certain understanding we're not robots but the point is a contract has reason to understand this let's use an extreme example understand


internal memo that maybe they even did a study in one of the user ears that said we've got we have no indication that any more than the slightest fraction of cardholders we frame from participating because they knew that last year we'd reach the goal


contributions to a charity even though two weeks ago there was all matched and you paid your ten thousand dollars if that occurred you may have some if that extreme


i mean he has he has a number of civil rights ninety three claims and he also has a claim that he was you know that part of his retaliate against him that he claims is that he was denied reinstatement after his he loses his job


had made a request and this is not in the record an appendix but it is in the record below document number nineteen on the day the judge has issued a scheduling mordor the date that day i


penultimate power which is the power to actually put people in jail so there's a real tension in terms of review and i think the way that that tension can and should be resolved is to make very very certain


merits by denying reconsideration of the constitutional claim that mr goh was convicted under a statute that had been narrowed in such a way that


concluding that he that the plaintiff was not in the right state of mind when he when he entered the settlement your honor there is documentation that was entered in the same filing e c f number nine on page twelve there


lawyer went over it with him i think there's maybe glass in these rooms too but i don't think that's in the record but but one thing you don't have is you don't have all of these facts being presented to a fact finder the district


project labor agreement will say that there can be no contract or there can be no union that can work on this project unless they agreed about be bound by the project labor agreement so they actually have to sign off that's the predicate to everything else you wish


i submit that an ordinary lay person juror in hearing the court's response to their request could very readily construe that to mean that the evidence of this condition is


nature hides that it's money or it's pretty boxes is is is not not relevant to the question of concealment sure you could transport money in a concealed way but the question is is it for the purpose of concealing the proceeds of


such evidence of course the trial counsel doesn't realized the extent of it until the trial is over as it's happening you can understand as it's happening where you might be able to get a proffer from the government estimate


reach the decision that was done before a decision that knowing what we know then was later was wrong even void was right when it was made i would argue no and here's why


before i don't see i can't imagine that your gender bill would have ruled the way he did that basis as a matter of law again i may not have called


this argument today i'm here on the left not the same case the later version this is the summary it's judgment stage i'd like to bring to the course attention a case decision this court issued two weeks ago of the gang versus


are stage craft that are inspired art it's not just the tiger and the dead ghost mayor it's the lawyer in the cell who's talking to mikail


and maybe was wrong to go to the jury the supreme court didn't necessarily say it was right or wrong but that's in fact what happened in that case correct and it should not here in the words of this court in farah having


between members living within the tribal area and those living outside the tribal area whereas formula area does kind of make that distinction so this reflects the belief that tribes would be kind of better position to make


contrary to the law the law says but i think i think the arguments a little different than that it's not whether the number is false it's whether whether formula area


humvee close to an improvised explosive device that exploded on a bridge in the city of kirkuk when he suffered his traumatic brain injury at that moment the army has


legislation just after his health assessment in his health reassessment requiring the military to do a traumatic brain injury screening and then that legislation required the screening to be implemented within


this is a special assistant u s attorney from our diet college experience and some technical difficulties i have called him on my cell phone good we can hear you so i think you still have about a minute left so you're welcome to wrap up like thank


now instead of looking for the grab a man of the claim against i have said the district court created a new requirement that said odds with the statutes history purpose and president which is that regardless of the


municipality causes a person to be subjected to a deprivation of rights the court concluded that that quote plainly imposes liability on a government that under color of some official policy causes an


firing you is acceptable because now you can't challenge it doesn't that law for shoring mean that you can't challenge your hiring because your only argument is they didn't hire me for the same reason that they fire


a claim that they were it was their personal ideas of what was good what was not interest and so forth it was our personal ideas in the sense that they cable companies are engaged in editorial discretion they were both


competitor all are allowed to speak colocated merely colocated as a result but nevertheless yes you see use the term in that certain of these market stations are in one market area other cities are and if you go to market area


the universe of things that are that are relevant and therefore need to be subject to the exemption inquiry is a much smaller universe which would actually make this process probably faster then if you had to


line this case is nowhere close to it because it is quite different since there is no individualized discrimination can i take you to stand in for a nd unless i don't i don't want to


denial of his boy or request for the financial records of the inmate trust funds that is one of them or the work day or not i understand


case for reversal is as to the alamo group since there is obviously no domestic taking issue there the alamo group was and is a


argued in our minds as well as in our our papers while the ostensible purpose was for the building of a bridge this was a subterfuge


question we're dealing with is does for a calf to say have authority to say when it ends if it's less than one year also there's not been a case out there that's address a specific question there's no specific circuit court authority on the


what the parties bargained for and the consent decree they put in are substantial procedural protection that is reviewed by a monitor that is something that occurred in this very case the monitor looked at this and that unfortunately there wasn't an additional confusion in which the monitor


those exact words used in those cases you're thinking of cases the minute


would forecast that this information would be shared so far in the future the further you get out more tenuous the objectively reasonable foreseeability becomes


is to provide you know to further the policies of usa g m and u s foreign policy in this will not you know open the pandora's box i think that the plaintiffs are presenting here to say that you know authorized under means


that the open technology found argues that it doesn't


we get to the more fundamental problem with the government's reading the government may get you somewhere in saying that that injects ambiguity although we don't think it does but if you go there and say it's ambiguous it doesn't allow the secretary to go


never been told and have never had the opportunity to comment actually they commented and then the agency just ignored comments like that also talk about the fundamental argument about what you are saying gets they told that they could at least know something because they could look at it for high deductible plans if


yes but if i could just answer the question this last would say this is a customized thing that the travel agency guys that wrote roads and your hotels your cars and maybe some disney world trips to look at it at sea world so what do you what's the


services in the arduous works so in that sense i think a sentence making a word out of the alphabet or using a recipe because you have the ingredients on your grocery list but somebody with some intelligence has to figure out how to put all those


more transparent than what the government is proposing especially when you says nothing more than a maximum because in my mind that means the hospital costs can tack any rate on the charge master rate because it's only a maximum we


will usually in customarily apply it depending on the category paying patient the agency here looked at the realities of the market for hospital care it looked at the statutory text including the diagnosis related groups laws and it looked at the


that is not a burden problem the rate exist you just don't know it until the patient showed up for care it could be on a volume discount if you come in for one x rays i understood that that's why you're asked it is two separate questions one how much the whole thing is going to cost and to whether it's


been able to point to a single instance in the forty years that this agency has managed the national forest and the listening torrie where the forest service has ever accepted a request to remove a roadless in fact parcel from the objective roadless and tory it's never happened


interpretation of this contract do you think it's d c local common law or something else i think of i think it's actually somewhat of a mix there is a common law under for anything


pointed to where the a n c is acting and again i want to be very clear as the authorizing rod aren't really a handful of situations the anchorage the priest the priest tach atory anchorage health care situation


non jurisdictional entities involved the commission has had to massage the system it had and the way it did was through this getting these voluntary commitments or


the declaration by the agency's decision making which were for to the classified information which was submitted in camera and the court review that declaration from the decision maker here in any event the records at the time the


this because the only reason document like this is produced is to be used in litigation it's a litigation manual so you don't even then the specific claim part of it sort of drops out of the equation because the proxy for which the specific complaint


enough why i think the st part of your your proposed distinction is relevant as well and that's what i was getting at if i may just continue to answer your question with the fact that the plaintiffs here put in evidence in support of their requests for a pull in their


meaning to indirectly regulate


a separate petition for review in this court which will proceed on its own track concerning that statutory process we think it's not relevant however to the interpretation of the connection and seven


is affected by the fact that we're on the complaint recorder never we communicated with the state department to request a finding of immunity for these defendants correct


the secret service says she's now a threat to just walking by pushing a baby carriage of the foreign service detail says we think that's a threat the foreign service detail has the authority to


means you're immune from the courts i mean you're coming from the courts the state if the state department said after viewing this video get those people out of here and they may never return they could do that right


include just knock off the federal excise tax even a system alone based upon his knowledge and experience as a market participant know i'm going to knock off the amounts to cover the other two surcharges he


facility that serves no purpose other than enabling the export of natural gas that there's been a significant commitment of resources enabled by the the first decision here despite the fact that


remote relationship that would be one thing but it's not merely a remote relationship it's actually a pretty direct relationship to what the church committee was investigating and if and that's that's something of public interest because that committee don't


know this is a federally approved project it's a permit for a major oil pipeline that goes across federal the public's forest service land in michigan as well as other areas of the


nepa applies to everybody applies to decisions other than certain categories of decisions that are administrative in nature in this case it is fems as viewpoint and this is being challenged by the way in a case recently filed


responded to his questions as anything but a factor his but his view on these sentences is certainly well known but it's it's not as if he surveyed the jury and then said ok well that's what the


independent and sufficient ground to support the judgment that's unaffected by house the harmless error determination when it would tip the word never raised whether it was harmless the


necessarily resolve whether or not the it will statements should come in because again a simpson has been arguing the panel's chuen excuse me the panel's two thousand and ten decision already creates the ground on which to


fail to have a substantial unheard injurious of fact and that these verdicts were surely an attribute of all that air and i think the words own statements today when she says it's impossible to pinpoint what might have been the


substituted an ok not every i'm sorry did i i should have been clear no i and so you so used to being in a regular appointed attorney this year and there's not a student here because there were some issues i had concerns


alleged have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and so logically what that requires is is is is that the appellate court has to look at that and say is there any rational thought finder of fact you could look at this and say there was no reasonable


convicted the statute could not be applied retroactively to those individuals it could still be applied prospect of lee because the state can post actively punish the state could say we're going to impose these restrictions as punishment on people in the


so in your view then all these things tend hotel office etc those are alternative elements in your view correct and scaffolds that that's the government's view is that those are alternative elements into the bizzle statute and i think


any reference to another's name social security number and number other identifying information instead this court looks to whether there has in fact been some sort of misappropriation i suppose i'll characterize it as of the


whether he had something new to say or not now that combined with appendix a you seem to be arguing is insufficient because it was a duty to go through each and every pleading that you filed


that the petitioners counsel didn't point to a case or we have the problem here as well there is no specific case that says that examination has to be adequate and even if that


there he is again but it's because she is identifying suppose suppose the rather than going to a sketch artist the person had made a sketch himself on the spot would that still be testimonial


looks real close to not an emergency but you don't have anything that says it's not an emergency so what sprain court in the future could say an emergency is anything until a person is caught and not be overturning any of its previous cases certainly


doctrine of the ongoing emergency exception here and i think that first i'm going to start by addressing judge rogers your question about what sort of the constitutional basis of that exception is and i think the better way to understand it is


furnace or something like that argument just devoured the distinction that the supreme court trying to make between testimonial and non testimony because under they had i know you're saying you don't have to go to the full exchange but under that if the


forward they performed shortly thereafter and also you have to put this in the context of the fact that these parties had been negotiating a settlement for a long period of time i think maybe a year i don't remember the


so to speak and then and you dealt with the government to say you had some sales relationship with them and then you quit is that person are subject to see it would be


and to the and it's obviously is part of the public the exact drugs that were compound in that were used for that execution it will be made available to the n h s yana so they would have the information needed to challenge whether this


person who it had been in and the execution drug cocktail is that what you're citing i don't believe that's what i'm saying i'm saying i don't actually know when that information is going to be provided i would believe it be before the first execution that


grant by the district court of the thirty five easy to see to motion granting a sentence reduction based on the guideline and seventy eighty two


then when the plant closing agreement applies here if that's how you satisfied the duration clause of the one nine hundred ninety eight collective bargaining agreement which you say governs here then the why you terminated


that provides for payments to retirees for retiring health care and the question before the court is is there clarity on the intention of the parties as to whether a bat provision


that as it may appear holster changed everything you can holster came down and flat out said that you can't do it because of the statute now mr kopp is made a pretty good argument i think i thought was a pretty good argument when he


involve default but it's a default based on a statute and a standard view i mean this court held believe me i can tell you this i i i i stick i mean i stipulated in jointly filed them that information i did that


well again if you get in the cases that are recognizing you want the parent words represent to come in and talk to the district you know so the courts don't have to deal with these kind of issues a lot of these things are very very unique in particular that's why do a set up


i'm glad you said that they come to help me figure this out so that's so excessive force usually means physical force right and so that's your way of what you just said is your way of saying this wasn't the first time she put her hands on i'd agree with at the point you're trying to make but but the statement you just


case it's a well known standard for summary judgment to be proper there must be no genuine issue of material fact and judgment for the movement must be proper as a matter of law evidence is not weighed it actually is construed in favor of the non


cut off chrysler's water for one day and see how much money that's going to generate immediately from the other corporate customers who are delinquent but you know rational basis for view doesn't the way it works is it's not an increase to the facts and the truth it's encouraging to whether there's a


is that's not what you argued you argued about sufficiency of the evidence with respect to a conspiracy to engage in multiple attacks ok so there are different arguments and so i'm saying if that's how i end up reading your first brief in the first appeal what do


telling them to do that and more puzzling than anything is why you kind would want that to have happened i would have thought your client would be saying nice work thanks for convincing the government not to retry me on the hate crime and just take it at that and this certainly


direct the district court to proceed to a reset and sing or did it direct this district or did it direct the district court to in fact what the plan language seems to suggest the remedy being a retrial of the matter certainly at


we disagree we don't think they raised it in their first as just different recognize in their first briefings they did not have any arguments related to their conspiracy to obstruct justice conviction you know they only


rebuttal closing argument the prosecutor stands up and says everything the fence counsel just told him is pure speculation it's not substantiated by any of the abbott there's been no testimony


challenge to a rent control ordinance and under this rent control ordinance if you had a rental property in the town you had to go to the permit authority and apply for a certain permit to pull that property off the


failed to share mr francis's second report opining that reasonable compliance had had been achieved with these standards council we will give you your rebuttal time of course but your memory time is expired thank you


process as the court's aware the case started out with agreement that the plaintiff would try to rehabilitate the structure in exchange for a very sizable waiver of a parking fee and that parking fee is


well this case the capital case is about the ravages of illegal drugs and drug crimes and how the criminal justice system struggles sometimes very poorly to dispense justice in these cases


he has the right to ask what supreme court case would make obvious to the ohio courts that on this fact pattern he had an obligation to ask but there isn't a supreme court case that says it is ineffective to fail to avoid here


the same thing comes up in the issue of why deer you have the right to have this why deer conducted that means that it's incumbent on the defense counsel to make a strategic decision maybe to ask or not ask but in this particular case there could


judge at these industry or michigan and if you don't follow those rules you end up seeing the chief judge so you know as an attorney i assume if the local court is going to pass electronic filing


suffered damages far in excess of one hundred seventy five thousand dollars and at trial he testified that the resolution of all of his damages he agreed on one hundred seventy five thousand dollars and i think the


and we believe that that is significant and then that that would allow a jury to find a likelihood of confusion along with all the other factors one of the things that puzzled me was trial judges determination that the


abetting felony murder but you have to show it and the state court sets out the state law aiding and abetting that has your honor pointed out mr mills was like the commander of this squad going into combat and anything can happen when you're when you're dealing


possessory words and and you're challenging that right but my question was if that was properly put before the jury then clearly in this case there was sufficient evidence that everything that came in was properly n you would have no


aircraft with that eighty inch propeller and was unwilling to test fly the aircraft in that eighty inch propeller yawner mr lawson also falsified the lower firewall installation entry he indicated that he installed


proceed on six damages actions the false claims act to declare the claim that they're pursuing here on appeal and for others two that were lumped together that they have abandoned on appeal what the district court found is that


it was a change of ownership and then the question becomes our view is because there was a change of control that is it per se sale or transfer of the frail i think that was he didn't weigh in on that i'm sorry about being unclear about that your honor and here


that factual narrative must not be inherently incredible and that's clearly satisfied and i'm happy to talk about that if it's part of any questions about that and third it must not be conclusively disproved by the record and again that's not what is true here but judge


tracks and so customers can go to those betting locations and view the video in real time to wager on those games more recently there's been a third way in which customers can gain access to these types of


many different ways in which trademark infringement can take place and it's i mean it's just the normal point is that the point of sale something is misleading and the nature of this is to bet first find out later where this race was run and then i guess


adversary would have been correct under the current pleading standards but there's got to be something other than the legal confusion then the then the ultimate conclusion left of it legal conclusion


real matter at issue in this case is whether or not the defendants were deliberately different to a risk of serious harm and imminent and excessive risk of serious harm to mr errington bay


vs a different course of action summoning medical assistance earlier i would submit to the court that there is no constitutional violation here because there is no evidence that the officers and jailers


lot of bizarre behavior involved in the other cases that is the one common element but i think that there are other facts or factors that substantially distinguish all of those cases from those that you and i say that's all the time i


one moment to call a doctor or a nurse that was paid for by the city for these particular types of situations and they just let it go and fester for so many hours till


and your hypothetical your honor has she called and revoke permission to call where she's revoke permission purportedly i don't know if she did it by calling or email or nail mail or whatever contract says she can do it orally


mirror view on already public information can't be a disclosure but the policy point i wanted to get to here is that the courts have repeatedly held that if a


it would not be right as a matter of public policy to let that defendant off simply because the initial filing of the complaint or investigation which


discontinued the blue book the reason that that's being discussed on the same day as it's ever been disclosed before and at that point c h s had discontinued in twenty five to thirty of the hospitals and


roll the dice and try and make a big hit in the program is that the whole everything the advisor was doing or where does this quote embedded tale come in the program really relevant it


did not correctly apply the standard for review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim we didn't get the benefit of the favorable reading of the complaint we didn't get the benefit of airing malice generally


stay the order says nothing about renting renter active relief and if you look at the various cases that have come out from the other circuits and even the sixth circuit addressing gnome and they all say that when in order when a bankruptcy court


claim and both claims are punitive damages and then we're also making the point of taking the position that the district court erred in granting our motion to to or for leave to amend the complaint once it was


are his written his written grounds written grounds where is the lighting from that an expert to testify and one of these cases he would render to the attorney he's going to ask her questions


it was not prejudicial would you concede that the not prejudicial defenses a little stronger than the deficient performance or do you think they're equally as strong i think that


was using it it could shatter and go through your hand she considered to be a pretty significant danger that required more of the increase that's what happened in this case because that's what happens in a lot of cases i mean we have there's a lot of other similar incidents there's a lot


services where their response can be we didn't know we took no action and that's the safer means for the child protective service agencies to say we didn't know anything that was going on we stopped no steps to do an


sure and as i understand it when the statute was amended to include possession as a separate offense it was because the government was happened was being required to identify the actual act


his story a little bit and says the car was parked at the edge of the property line of course i'm not allowed to know that implies that you probably could find her because it sounds like she's the next door neighbor on one side or the other if you have to understand i'm prohibited from by the magistrate judge of even


happened that night and this sufficiency just real quick i mean is it kind of a coincidence that they end up at her doorstep or isn't that supports the idea that she was acting in concert bringing those guys to the location


the issue but i don't think banks is controlling the air because the facts are distinguishable if i recall banks there were numerous communications i think banks involved a report and a claim that funds were being misused in the


and fulfill his military obligations so mr mr savage had to frequently fly back and forth from methods to new orleans in order to fulfill his military obligations and sets although it didn't have to and certainly wasn't required


purpose of forty three eighteen b b three b the not reasonably certain provision is that if someone works on commission on overtime there you are you wouldn't know week to week how much they're going to make right because you can pick


basis for it in country because if you simply called it reverse then you would say it exposes the assets of the corporation to the debts of the shareholder precisely your


those four hundred thousand dollars from the other state or are you sort of timed out from having any remedy there well the when the virus did


significant factor here this wasn't a case it wasn't a negligence case or tort case between strangers this is a case involving two companies that entered into a nearly two year long business relationship another factor that's


saw now he's at his truck and he's putting on his mug preparing to pull marijuana and then it is what is he hearing the first thing hears and i think plaintiff's counsel has a greed with


government facility in chicago said he was competent stand trial back then the psychologist said that he was that that he had some issues and that he needed more treatment so the court ordered


bravado doesn't it member of member the question is whether he's competent to assist in his defense and if he's thinking his lawyer is conspiring with the u s attorney how's that going to work well that's a really critical


to you know the he didn't he was very rational and was able to function in the courtroom i wish to my clients would do that in the courtroom so forth worked out very well for me he's having a good


a state that obviously a layperson could see that this person needed medical treatment like a while back and not now so and that your argument that


eventually the bottom line is that


aldridge nurse ph dr walbridge are not defendants before you they were dismissed they were not appealed southern health partners is the entity before you on the deliberate indifference calling their judgments their


driving it all roads all issues in this case come back to those two facts the jury got it right the jury got it right they held for mr seawards and they said that he is not a threat to


and this was worthington's suggestion so we crafted the stipulation to move forward with the trial we knew there was going to be an appeal with thought it was going to shortcut some stuff but it it didn't but within that in


admitted to on and his a conclusive facts and rule thirty six he's a mid to there's obstructed views so it obstructed views and with other forklifts how is he going to operate without hearing you told us that i


motion for summary judgment b all motions objections orders and arguments relating to the liability phase including but not limited to court's ruling that serious and was required to prove the issue a dead issue of adverse employment action a trial see the court or in denying plaintiff's


they're saying it's zero and i so i do have those documents there's a difference between the plan document and the summary plan description and the summary plan description is what contains a claim procedure and we do not have we do not have we have the


sir she gave a recorded statement to an insurance represent this is page where my brief and started page six six six of the record this came up at trial she was cross examined on a statement she provided near to the time of the


court has ever dealt that a thirty three year sentence of the fact a life sentence for a juvenile or for an adult and the defendant was an adult when he committed this offense and until the legislature makes the determination that they need to retroactively


justin justin says he looked up and suddenly demetrius was right in front of him and he shot seventy and downward trying to get him away so there was some evidence from my client from his brother that he shot wrong


and and it's very simple we do these every week to make it clear fifty three payments starting next month and had dave put that in there we would not be here


that he quote wasn't shooting in the air that's what the defense that the defendant said after the shooting that he wasn't shooting in the air the defendant also said that he thought he quote caught a body d or the quote body dropped and that's at page one hundred


that speak of a definitive diagnosis not being required i also think that a it ignores the fact that when there's claimant side doctor acard on august twenty nine that dr eckard as claimant acknowledged at two points in time in the record he was diagnosed


is that dr meyer said that in fact it everybody says that when you have told us that you breathe in over your thirty years of coal mining a lot of space trapped there for the rest your life and dr meyer said as much as fifty percent of the way the lungs


he testified he was there if you read the commission's decision closely what you will find is that the commission did look at this on the issue of accident everything that they did the science to moan it was credible about had nothing to do with the accident


bias by the time he testified he was the exalted root of this lot and the commission says he has no eyes it's not going to affect their insurance rates it's not


list the july twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen m r i but he does reference it and his reading of it in the report under the m r i of the cervical spine which is june one thousand two thousand and fourteen he notes his comparison


history and since this since this incident i'm no criminal history no disciplinary problem problems and school successfully graduate from high school is now on college there is no other problems


instruction the jury should only consider those autopsy photos for the purpose of the murder charges for those of the aggravated battery you know you're entering a very special instruction however obviously with


business record and that accuracy exists because without that accuracy a business would not be successful it needs its business records to be success in order to be successful and therefore


third requirement is that there be a conflict of interest between any insured and with any form or with any client or former client or with the interest of any person claiming it interested in it the same or related


oldest daughter and the father i mean frankly i think that she did was very selfish she waited to get another year to be able to move to north carolina to have the court make the decision as to whether or not she could move the girl to north carolina she


in regard to the original orders


colonel this is what i do in these medical evaluations it's called unit integrity he doesn't want to be left behind and so he checks the box that says excellent health so he goes to afghanistan while in it


so you know i think using mapquest it's possible that the that the appellate court is entirely within its rights to use a generally accepted system like that best or or google maps


which is to reverse the decision of the district court remain on the case to the regional board of trustees with directions to grant the petition for


ask this court grant ronde barber a new trial thank you thank you counsel obviously you'll be given time for rebuttal and before we close today then we will discuss time frames if you will wish to have the supplemental briefs on the case that


were married for just over eleven years they were actually married precise


was raised for the very first time in a


really truly upon a parent's right to guide and make decisions for the child if you're married and you get to be worse in can't figure things out on your own you're essentially inviting the state into your living room into your kitchen to help you figure down to decide what's best for the


he's very familiar with this man this is not as we used to get real health cases in here where we actually had someone testifying at the hearing when there


ok we need to get something for our house to try to prevent that from happening again that's certainly a positive step in the right direction and making sure that problem doesn't happen again this is again


th had not already extended the trial date to out me eighteen and up and at that time attributed the delay to the defendant that's what prevented the date from actually running on april


fifteen so she was somewhere in the range of forty years old i believe so i think it might it may have been a head start it wasn't actually kindergarten but it was noted that she was afraid to use the restroom with another one


the house and if she moved him just by itself we're looking at reasonableness of action if someone's taking your child away from you because you're living in a filthy dirty place and you've


not completed this and i think it's very important that according to the caseworkers that despite these classes there was not a lot of interaction between respondents and


that happened in the pm how did he drive two hundred eighty five miles after completing all of these activities and get there by twenty nine pm it's a small issue but it's where i'm telling you


police refused to let the rice call his mom they say he's not going to be allowed to talk to her that time they continue to ask some questions which that's just getting care interrogation because a response would have been


circumstances i think st has to take a step back and say are all my going to be able to convince the court well let me rephrase it to be perfectly straightforward honest it's a st amendment issue so the burdens on the state on the threshold so the question for