are both not typical loss cases they have to show two things one is they have to show the true value of the shares at the time of purchase the second you're on or under under the cave and following through the supreme


barcus the trial court didn't want to get into prior trials findings by prior juries findings by different courts so the court ultimately decided to charge the jury as


remarks and i would also note that this court has repeatedly held that a prosecutor may properly comment on the credibility of witnesses one case would be favors this one a case from this court out of two thousand and eight


thirteen years later and he never comes forward it's only because current counsel finally interviews him i might also note something else because i know the court was a little concerned about the whole question few minutes there and what have you the prior


this point and i don't think i got a chance answered judge greenleaf question about this before that she had made before trial that there would be and i think was my refer to this is to be no discussion of any prior proceedings so i don't wait thinking you know if she had already read on that and she made that clear when the prosecutor


have an assumption of drug count and you also charge eighteen us c section two and you don't ask the you you instruct the jury as to what aiding and abetting does but you don't tell the jury you must find


expensive to the maximum extent feasible is a technical defense that every transportation authority has and it normally occurs and it has occurred historically when there has been a structural modification which


section one purposes that's the passage you read your earlier just laurie's opinion now what happens here along comes a change of the supreme court re so place maintenance as of two thousand and seven is no longer per se illegal


certain exceptions that the courts have recognized and none of those would apply here because mr helder brain has attempted to avail himself of that he is relying upon the argument that he's satisfies the pleading requirements by


waive an opportunity to the deuce evidence of mitigating circumstances not policing on the record in camera what he had what he done what he would have


of things the government completely disagrees with defense counsel's interpretation that he did nothing but merely sit there simply because you may be president doesn't mean that you are not doing something in furtherance


research are available so that's what the u s department of education's comments are about what it means to the extent practicable that if there's nothing that are based on peer reviewed research that matched the child's needs because


it's not required but the i d f says it's required to the extent practicable meaning if it's readily available i think the whole problem with your analysis with your argument is the words themselves are in the u s or they're not


not third parties in we know in another country in fact we're talking about is what this defendant standing charges in this trial whether he was willfully blind to


actions that he was taking such that one could at least and for knowledge the issue got amber o with all due respect is whether it will fall by innocent structuring can be given with respect to the purpose of a specific intent requirement


said they are both equally in front of you and either of them would be enough to overturn this verdict but but then my question is when you look at pages prior to thirty nine seventy


and we did not have a two month trial on the question of intent where the whole issue for the defense this was the defense was that he was in charge of the business and he knew lots about the business and he knew some about the money


what has has not shown here in the hess case is injury to it it did not plead it did not prove during the case that it wanted to buy teeth of over other companies and was unable to because


knew about criterion sex obviously they were obeying it and is that sufficient to be the equivalent of the kind of intent than an actual monopolist has in the broad concave in the pages case


inconsistency if you will look we don't we didn't believe that the imparted to lick their defense should be should have been used but we're not trying to re argue that case the issue is they can have be in a position because of in


vasquez and i think we touched upon in the brief how this is totally distinguishable from the circumstances and vasquez where you had a two person case where taking aside the concern turns about


opinion recommendation said in a footnote that the defendant would have the opportunity to have notice an opportunity to be heard the defendant then filed


other facts in the record that preclude the exercise of jurisdiction what are the first of all as the court has noted there is no allegations of any contact with the state that we're off would justify general jurisdiction


us the fact that the delaware supreme court said employed or controlled was consistent with our argument in that appeal that the c v a subsection be accomplished more than just the employer employee relationship on that same issue your honor the reason that


only upon entry of separate judgement are appellate rights triggered that's that's that's the way the rules are that's with analysis goes and you cannot harm the person with a poet rights would be triggered in terms of


well first of all if i may judge garth there was no argument held this was simply i beg your pardon there was no argument held this was simply on briefing briefing yes even under if wrong what was wrong with his


right in other words one party i mean maybe i'm just misunderstanding but i was on the impression of mohammed was based on the notion that the individual who's bargaining with the the real power can't change that it's


bank whatever financial institution the account was held that when the account was closed i believe solitary found out absolutely so in order to apply this enhanced met you have to it has to the trust


does that make it more difficult to detect the wrong makes it easier to say this is not again you know the evidence here was that you know that the government wasn't receiving notification this


come with a conclusion for the candle well i think in the bummer ido decision they found that this was a question of law in regards to arise out of in the course of and they ruled that was it is know it could be seen as it


to these instances i think that the court used the term domestic abuse so i don't think that it makes a difference


i would urge this court to consider the particulars of this case for using that you have to work at the whole context there isn't just a touching or hole in her it really comes in but that isn't


was sent back for a sentencing hearing without the mandatory gun and ask us the court does not need to make this does that decision at this point it only needs to decide whether to docket defendant's claim for a nd stage post conviction


uninsured motorist problems which is a different coverage than you i am you i am is under insured motorists and it applies when a carrier the at fault carrier doesn't have enough insurance to adequately compensate the


must make a written demand for arbitration that is the only clause you will find in the policy whatsoever dealing with a formal written demand for arbitration in the contract area


and why but part of the reason why the date is in issues because mr sharper says that i didn't babysit in november or in january two thousand and thirteen i babysat in my grandfather's house in november of two thousand and thirteen not in january so that means


violation would not be i'm self is being under arrest and this court in torture ricci found a stop was converted into an arrest when the officer handcuffed the defense said that he was under arrest and in smith this court said that the use of


illinois that sets up the dichotomy that holland seeks to impose on this court that there is some tension between premises liability and the business pursuits


daycare operation you must keep it safe and the conditions must be safe so the idea that this was where we're where we draw that conditions that kind of wanted you to continue with your exception but now


of the business activity from that the government part of that they care operation oh it certainly was your honor the when the d c fs investigator came to the kennedys home she discovered seven children in the pool


business as some cases have done let's look at smiley and make this in most cases business included the operation of a home daycare the term business eery could do that here you could say a business


based on anything other than the evidence introduced to this trial


plaintiff is this the second to file they have to survive the vetting process which is properly exercised by the government in the form of the attorney general's office and by all roche economists about this case not lack of


charities as a matter of fact they've offered to make sure the money was spent locally however the will just doesn't argue to to give money to charities but if you look at the


are going to get the services are outside the way outside as far as twenty one counties versus three three states this is this is a case where the fiction that


what not and at the end of the day the court said listen we've you guys agree the last time you were here this is how we're going to do the survey but there there wasn't any sort of disagreement if you will they would rise to


defendant handed a gun to people who were using his van and minutes later there was a drive by but the court found that he did not have any intention to aid these people


incriminating statements is among the most powerful in from paul in the evidence that can be presented at a criminal trial flip side of that is that it's among the most prejudicial evidence they can be presented


the affidavit didn't mention deal and that's true but that's only a good part of this due process violation of argument so forth in the event of post conviction petition and i'm not arguing today


sobriety test or portable breath test for the defendant refusal


beverage on his breath all of those things together show that defendant was under the influence of alcohol so what i don't have a vehicle code for me but improper lane usage


inconsistent season this


court is satisfied that the jury was able to find those elements beyond a reasonable doubt here in the robbery of the tavern was not but there's nothing to show


prejudiced if the evidence is sufficient to suggest that the result would be different had that charge been severed and so the argument is the evidence supports the conviction because either way whether it was seven or not just the


trial we don't know if mia testified in her trial about a plan that the two put hatched in order to obtain her conviction we only know that she testified at her trial and significant portions that testimony were read


belief that the conduct at issue really violated or fell within the purview of the human rights act or the title seven so the th circuit that walker case has absolutely no bearing and it is explicitly contradictory


that post in vision home there's no reason not to bring home the walls so you're asking us to write an exception into the criminal that i don't use an exception i mean asking you to do that because it's


sole members of crest hillman development a while see the mortgage or there was a four million dollars loan balance although crest hill over the life of the loan paid roughly five million


misrepresentations on one fifty four the first district case that we cited a lot a y a a l a again called a declaratory judgment but based on failure to disclose information that was material to the rest


and anything that creates a memory is necessary to change or effect within our car if you believe in philosophical dualism that's a whole separate story and that's fine but if this court case their brain or our memories exist within a within our body within


just hey we look back and try to figure out what could have happened or what would have happened based on speculation and conjecture it has to actually be evidence there are ways that mr counsel for the defendant could have proved by cleary who did see evidence of the outcome would have been


is no evidence whatsoever in the record that any and visible opinions or issues of intoxication just not in fact it's to the contrary which is that the last womb


while now we go a month down the road and the party reaches for a totally different service or doesn't provide a good that they were supposed to provide we still have the same parties we still have the same contracts we have different underlying facts just like in this case we have different


lot of hearsay that came out in that nd trial what opposing counsel talked about was that t m was allegedly trying to obtain firearms


were asked questions about something that they may or may not have been involved in they denied any involvement and that was the extent of their contact to separate and distinct phone calls and hence the course also held that contrary to applebee's


thousand dollars give or take was that accounted for in the distribution of marital property he's


marriage something happened during that point that she she shouldn't walk away with less than she came in with and that's essentially what the ruling was mr woodrum keeps what he keeps and if you'd like to argue


suppressed in this case the police issued a so called forty nine message which is an internal police finding of probable cause for arrest they did not get him warrant and they


focusing on the st portion of the argument as to why the defendant sentence is excessive and inappropriate but certainly if time permits and if there are questions i will address the latter issue concerning the victim impact statements


the state points out in their brief the discussion of a lie detector test totals around thirty seconds for the last thirty seconds so in ten hours of time the jury could of easily watch this entire video watch it several


was prejudicial and was a are in should result in her conviction being reversed so regardless it was published during the trial i think it's worse in the way it's happened here because now the jury


the our supreme court looked at the statutory authority that existed that could possibly enable these special investigative systems to go out and perform these law enforcement functions and it didn't exist and the quote this organ also the supreme court


was formed in two thousand and four by fifteen catholic orders who each contributed seed money to start the charity but hundreds of these orders were called provincials and made up the charity's board of trustees in addition to the provincial


starting per for this case is the valuation of supportive living facilities under thirty five dollars tense last three dash ninety of the property tax code property that section the property tax code simply to dictates that


evidence coming in no your honor i did not i i felt the limiting instruction only even further emphasizes the fact of seven are illegal


felony and oh by the way there's no court of the statute and so you should just hold it unconstitutional across the board the defendant isn't raising that kind of an argument here the defendant isn't contending that that we can't figure out under the well


brain and then a few days later there was a cat scan of her brain now the ael j didn't mention that evidence anywhere in the decision and that both the m r i and the cat scan indicated that my


undefined purported discrepancies that are mentioned in the decision for in the commissioner's brief do not satisfy the test of any of those cases furthermore mr parker should have


parties know what they're getting with these classes and that they know how their they're going to be to handle by the courts and that's part of the significance of this case i'd like to move over to just a couple of other points mr dunne seems


know what happened we don't know how they got to the bank i think it's a fair inference to say they arrived in the car together but we don't know what they discussed we don't know whether a firearm was displayed we don't know


has already noted payslip and davis entered and left the bank together also indicative that the plan happened before and they carried it out they gave the same phone number and interestingly that phone number


officers were lawfully present when they saw the gun it was in plain view and as your honor asked was it incriminating whether it was incriminating and it's our position that you have a gun in this situation which is


court can be assured that if a finding of no past persecution in this case to affirm that finding would be consistent with that the court's jurisprudence but it just point the petitioners burden has to show


money was the plot for a reason for selecting the february twenty eighth date and although i do want to also address my point of statement about mr wilson's reasonable expectations i submit first of all it's it's


these people that he himself was a medical doctor and it was within that context of dr doing those access influence and personal relationships that his personal his extramarital relationships with these women was so programmed


an adult female crystal his girlfriend crystal starts the letter k there is no evidence if you knew he was in fact sending out a message to our cave being the


recover further in under insured motorists coverage to conclude by way of summary this case is a straight forward application of the policy the district court properly interpreted and applied the policy is written we ask you to


eroding and the morale was collapsing but these types of documented problems really didn't occur until two thousand ranks of the two teachers who were falsely accused of having sex in school there were two different instances so there was an initial


good morning your honors me please the court this case is ultimately all about the decision of the oak creek franklin school board to stop the automatic renewal or the automatic rollover of miss farrel's contract in january of two thousand and


both put on a plan of improvement now i don't believe the record indicates the date that ms bombard was put on the plan of improvement i believe it actually happened around the same time in december of two thousand and nine but both individuals were then put their


were raised by the plaintiffs but it appears here that he weighed those factors himself as opposed to allowing the jury to do so so doesn't


hand or something but they managed to get by absolutely well now that's what i keep wondering heres is this make or totally disabled list because this one


people who had money and that would respond quickly when one of these calamities arise would arise and i think the district court's error was to conflate the consequences of this


the harm done to the victims although the vulnerable victim enhanced men did give some bump in the guideline range that would account for the fact that they targeted these people and then the harm to them that really in


request for the jury poll once the trial court makes the mistake and fails to poll the jury you have the appellate counsel failing to say that the trial court made a mistake when it did that which appellate counsel certainly could have


use the bathroom it's unbelievable you don't talk to me had enough reasonable suspicion to call the canine unit and you're just complaining that he didn't call it as early


discuss that with mr michelson or ms nicholson excuse me so i think that kind of brings in not only that equal protection but i think it gives some clarity to the intent of the motion one of the trustees also testified that the intent of the motion was to remove those slaughter operations


were questions made about it and the only information that the judge had was in and of itself her experience but we have no idea what her experience is on those issues sol if there


the fact that the court addressed it i think in drug quantity is always going to play prominently into the guideline calculation that's that's baked into the cake of guideline sentences in drug cases so


spend hours addressing that but this court has held is this just becomes form over substance is my point and we've already you know crossed that bridge far too many times from our perch up here at the court of appeals as far as i'm concerned


line what i would say and i'm not sure that i remember every detail of johnson so i don't want to act like i do but what i would say is that what i believe from this court's precedent here is that in some


why you're not you it's going to affect the driver fatigue illness or any other reason which would include the weather then that would be a regulatory violation so the very things that they're complaining about are already within the harassment


case as the case law demonstrates over and over again probable cause is a flexible non technical concept and it rests on practical considerations about everyday life it doesn't require proof of a


and the money was not in the prison account the money all there ever was right he could have done that i agree that's conceded it was a possibility and he did and the question is for the failure to do that in this


reached him at his office it's undisputed that he call defended reynolds and told him that he would come to his office after or they could reschedule and when it's undisputed that when reynolds visited mr alston's


bugs it may be of a beneficial purpose but that does not matter under the equal protection clause whether it is affirmative action or whether it is a negative action against a group of people if you are targeting people on the basis of their race strict


the the ten years on the nine twenty four cd is the guideline range no matter what you if he fires into the air to scare somebody it's a ten year guideline and it's a ten year guideline if he puts three bullets at point blank blank range into her


inhabitant of the planet you know who is not in the united states has a due process right you know to try to come to the united states that's not what absolutely else has ever been and i don't think we could be the first court to say so but i would with ms morphin


is your big complaint about the use of the word psychopath because at the post conviction stage social personality disorder and other milder terms are just different terms also


back to see the overall performance of the lawyer because we don't pick out one thing or another thing they do put a can on the stand who's quite clear that in his view and he's got a lot of experience a very good witness


bar asked frank some questions and there's a huge dispute between the defendants and mr hess what we can can happened as is that mr franks provided a description that matched my


very closely something that actually happened and dr levin testified again i videotape that it would not bother him one bit if a white russian ministre that responded to remark in a rush meeting about stealing money by telling her african american husband since you're


did not go through the agreement your honor at the end as your part of what is judge posner refers to


listed employees as part of its employee representative committee the union agreed with the company's proposed let's propose language and then said they would submit the entire collective bargaining agreement for edification when the union later refused to execute the quid pro quo by


court does embrace it from time to time and that's your best hope but that's a very expensive and dicey proposition and we were unable to


law level it is an appeal from a social security disability ruling that was also denied at the federal court level the two big issues in this case


the guidelines characterize those positions as someone who has direct authority to make decisions or substantial influence over decision making processes while tell me this would end of these sales


do really well or it's a good program and i want to give them a little money so i'm going to send this potentially valuable property to them at no ten essentially no cost i think that's the intention of the flexibility built into the system is to


skandha and all of these other places that he worked without that showing there the protection can't attach to who's burden in your view is it to make that showing stuff to hand and burden if you want to the protection of the


cash in his apartment he received a fair trial and the conviction should be affirmed although his sentence of approximately fifteen years while facing a thirty year maximum we believe is reasonable we do concede that


mitigation even if the jury did answer the right question in this case of whether death was appropriate for ray allen it


fundamental reason for civil rights if you change the power but under your theory if you don't care either damages in doing it you can pay the light no that's not our theory are the areas i appreciate there


through to protect themselves but if they assign that shows an action to somebody who goes have the ability to litigate it then they can get a remedy maybe that congress


driving the situation exclusive licenses are given for business reasons and they get a company by the right to sue here there's no there's no big business rationale and so the possible multiplicity is not limited by whatever business


the reasoning was the court's view that the nature of the patent right is such that the cause of action for its infringement inheres in the property rights to exclude and therefore they cannot be separated and that reasoning has been


nothing to do with a criminal charge you know i don't i understand that argument but i would say that since the criminal charge it's brought by the ins and since the government is under an obligation to file


completely precluded somebody from even thinking about a position because of their race i'm inclined to say the grass and grettir still get us to the conclusion that that in of itself was an actionable form of conduct in terms of having a policy that was in


question about it it makes sense to remain and to the district court for an opportunity to develop their record before we go off considering whether to invalidate


the policy itself and i don't think that this court would be either respectfully with those who me assuming there is standing just for the sake of argument from your point of view is your case


at that point the state was paying the los angeles district somewhat over four hundred million dollars for its desegregation program and the legislative analyst's knew this this was conveying to the public that the that the


to a jury that understands the law that is not apt that is not functioning on a misapprehension of the law now if as i say i think the jury question here showed that they were certainly confused on the issue of whether a person may


time and now she's doing it and it was it was clear from the record that she made the decision to do to make that motion while she was before judging just before trial began there was no indication that there was any intent on her part


they made the argument explicitly but even as a trial the testimony came out when it was kind of weaker than they expected in terms of the evidence that was actually


is there is a way to sign up to get jobs but obviously you have to have work authorization and be entitled to vote for the rest of the crew there's a long line outside the millionaire's club and people pull up and cars and people jump in and they go off and do their day


approximately twenty five to thirty percent of the total testimony time of the police so they gained a strategic advantage by testifying inconsistently so it laughed


tuesday ends on friday one week the next week starts on tuesday and ends on friday and that's how the time was going to be summed up i don't know why the one thousand three hundred twenty five minutes per side in the court the court did every


against him i want to jump back for just a second to what mr todd just finished with and the question is is there a case out there and that says you have to allow


is individuals in our society often defendants who cannot cases are suspicious of and don't necessarily accept what the government offers as the gospel truth and that's why the district court needs to make sure that it isn't showing an understanding


i believe that this is an excellent case to do what i did want to mention jeremy do you know because the government mentions that and one thing i would say that's an important distinction is that involved younger children that i believe that the government seen


they're not that they're not grabbed away from somebody and that in a highly pressured situation and i think that's almost every case that's reported on the defense whether it's called defensive stuff or others or justification involved that kind of unusual circumstance now


by the unique pro se side and that no particular question that we ask is going to be very helpful for the next case i suppose if we come up with some simple skiing such as a


no such conversation took place so he comes in and then he thought they were talking but there was no statement about why does he hear anything like this all hypothetical so


any interior with interior kind of case such as the briefcase scenario you're describing and the case where there are more of just sweet privacy issues created by a user of a computer who has


that the i s o would have approval authority over the orders the state wire project and other said must africa doesn't work for us because we are a multi purpose


which to make a determination which doesn't have to be correct you can even be wrong and really the question is is an objective leak and reasonable is their objective we know the reasonable basis for the


months when they don't the court does not give him a role reduction even though there's no evidence he did anything except arrive there and unload some marijuana which is in the case notes for the for the guidelines


are i don't think that can be said with respect to the world body because at the same time something that has not been challenged before this court and i mentioned it very briefly in the in the brief is that there was also an application in order granted to install a video


think what's even more reliable was his testimony which was it needed from the police officers who were called to the scene that night who trusted by the way corbin told them at that time on the night of the incident when they asked him why do you want to remove the


lingering doubt itself could have carried the day in terms of a life sentence given a doubt about the prosecution's witnesses identifying standers whether he was the state has admitted he was not the actual that they don't know who the actual killer was


i'm david kernell representing the united states in this case and obviously we will concur and all of the remarks at the state attorney general made concerning the viability of the search in this case


also the state of mind to think well after the statement came in did anyone say to the court after well give a limited instruction to the jury and tell them this isn't for the truth of the matter that they did in fact you know keller panamanian or she just security guard was


activity is just extortion that's all it is extortion was not charged in this case but the taxing activity through the distribution of drugs was and judge carter recognized that the taxing and the distribution


in the community effects you can say that's not good enough for us we want to care that is care that's all they've been given for the president of the country before recall that this provision


decided that the discretionary decision would not have been the reason it would have affirmed primarily it doesn't mean that it was a reason that was discounted or that it would have reversed on the discretion that's pure speculation at this point they say that


depositions and declarations and documents it's our position that that's ample evidence for the court to grant relief because there is substantial evidence in there but if the court has any doubt as to the weight


in that particular incident the defendant that was his case was reversed he was a passenger in a truck that was carrying over forty six pounds of marijuana he was friends with the person that was driving the truck they had


judge gave the petitioner a fair shot at telling her story and i confess to a bit of confusion because several questions from the court to me and my colleague has have indicated an assumption on the part of the authors that these


it's hard to prove it of course i say in our brief that her claim that she didn't know it was an asylum application and that she was actually applying for for special relief as a as a special agricultural worker is not borne out by the


about this particular robbery that we believe put them


clear that it lawyer who is supposed to make reasonable decisions can't rely on a defendant who doesn't know what he's talking about me


it's mr stank which were vehemently opposed to calling family members then certainly the information from family members could have been used by psychiatrist or psychologist but the thing about the mitigation is yes


point i don't want to make this personal but epic well don't feel very comfortable that's why we filed the foyer act the next day so we could see the contract i have no idea why why be create one point give us all the public contracts and not the


markets and which prices are set market wide to look at things individually does not give market wide relief there's a bit of the fact that there's pervasive misconduct in every hour during the period and and when when


different types of relief for these individual market investigation i'm not sure i understand what you mean by make the markets whole and in particular we have the allocation are they


shoot at responding officers and sergeant reeves actually said when he got out of his car secure these people i don't know who they are so based on the totality of circumstances or there was an excessive force


the eight them the investigator from the state interviewed one of the interviewed mr williams or mr erickson and then isn't there also


but he did not and he did shortly after i believe it was a month later when he didn't or a pro se appearance but i believe he had once again i'm just going to hold this up document one thousand


pregnant the warning that the plaintiffs challenge is inadequate than one nine hundred ninety two clomid pregnancy contra indication and we'll get to contraindications later because i think the fact that it's a pregnancy contraindication is extremely important it's not merely a


clearly outweighs any possible therapeutic benefit those situations include the use of drugs and patients who because of their particular age sex concomitant therapy disease state or other condition have a substantial risk of being harmed by


and how that prior treatment was connected to david terry's decision not to promote sasser and it discounted how terry's use of both subjective criterion criteria and perceived


percent of their ranking that would go into the decision of which a individuals to interview and that's where he lost out so i searched in vain


possibly have found two point seven million dollars in total damage as but doesn't the court say something like go back and do your best to apportion the district court did say to go back in to allocate to the best of its ability as required


mr rahman described the angle of the gun by holding his right arm up to his left shoulder the prosecution's expert mr police said that this put the muzzle of the gun in the approximate area of the shoulder or


and so with that precise question they then awarded fifty eight thousand four hundred twenty seven dollars so the better question is who's to pay right you know she lost


relief that doesn't mean that you have weightings the immunity that is an incredibly stringent strict test to do that in the religious act and so men didn't need that and as you point out today the randall sheppard


using to address the first and second of those in one section in your brief pages twenty eight thirty six and didn't break down do you view those two grounds as being two


female running and we've got also kind of a troubling fact that that that he kind of changed his view whether he thought he saw a female or a male driver kind of for convenience purposes i don't know where


states did something unique and special for utah just us so on the merits one of six resource management plans with found to be deficient under the n h p a and planning regulations look at the record wilderness


level because elisa's to the second of these places that you have revealed information about me that has made me feel more vulnerable to things you are that's not sexual harassment nor is that sex discrimination to notify someone that


particular the passage in i'll read it from ask you i think there was a similar one in ross where this court said and i'm quoting significantly we know that ms ask you does not allege


isn't deliberately indifferent new liability can arise if there is a do school receives notice that wait the remedial response that we entered the wasn't totally infected there's further harassment going on and the court representing vance


to remain and slowly for the purpose of addressing whether or not the defendant wants to withdraw his plea and if so


in that is the critical fact and the critical law let me ask you this and we have cited we have this court has interpreted the canon in


prevailing party in because we're sitting in diversity and not under the whatever buchanan name yes ok so can you point me to some place in the


took place in which the a court could have argued i mean could have offered that opinion so whether they asked were not it seems to me is not really relevant well i would frame the the answer the district court gave a little differently the district court said if it involves no allegations of


errored in denying the motion to substitute because because there was never a shift adequate showing of a total breakdown in communication correct that is the argument that is our position and he has the burden


jurisdiction over this appeal from the district court's clarify order to begin the appeals timely the christer courts clarified or started the appeal time and new and the clarifying order substantially


video does show that the officer said hey i'm going to get him or i feel nothing but i definitely am going to get him for something you know that would be a case where it was a no in violation but there is no such record here and that


stop that hasn't been altered their their rights has been altered as a qualifying you know false arrest and the inventory search but they haven't argued why conditioning both of those qualified immunity


litigation between the parties i'd like to move now to the second point if it's ok the second point is the colorado river doctrine and the court just got this wrong as well and again this was not anything that the parties to brief this was a year and four months


question right yes that's a question whether or not there is there are two cases pending in federal court and then with regard to the second case substantially more mature any


it and so the court continued on and they continued to prosecute their counter claims all the way up to the point of summary judgment briefing so we're we're left at a time when the new the utah court


i'm not going to get into all these statistics in the data whether a true first offender should be just english from someone with a criminal history of one who has one point i'm just not going to get into that


that applies in this case to that extent there they are a i believe a proper party and i believe there are necessary party i would we happy to brief the issue we asked to do that i did not hear back from the court when we


that is not a lawyer sitting in the back room parsing the you know the the the comma in the in the indefinite article word definite article whether that jury is it recently likely entirely in light of all of the proceeding that they would have deprived


matter regardless of whether the state court has or has not found a constitutional violation is there clearly established law on pawn which the petitioner can rely in this case to show a constitutional violation case


to the voluntary intoxication defense it might have been relevant to an insanity defense but the fact that he's hearing voices has nothing to do with whether he intended to kill


a special use permit was necessary and yet they didn't appeal that decision so this surprising for me to hear that this is such a prominent show their argument when they didn't even appeal that the district court ruled that issuing a special use permit for wildlife to stick


necessarily how this is going to play out or how one goes about putting together a defense this is not one of these guys who's you know been run through the system multiple times it know and that is actually taking account as should his advanced education like in turn or the


the defendant fashioned a defense i mean in terms of evidence it's dues that kind of thing fashioned a defense that was consistent with a good faith put aboard evidence that was consistent with a good faith defense i believe it was consistent


standard of review unless and until the language in that document that they're providing to people is clear in providing notice that the review will be under deferential standard room we have the plan i don't believe


review and we make that argument again here i think the the problem in this case as a case is that you have parents obviously very concerned for a child if you have a viewing doctor if that would really


antisocial disorder you can change that person it's not just social it can be medicated because the actions that he did no longer occurred when he was medicated except for the one time he did get into an attack with regard to there was a lot of


thought about the fallout and what and who would suffer i asked him what that meant and he said i was dumber than i thought he said what was going to happen my mother my brothers or of all police force couldn't stop he didn't care who knew and if i was


told and what we what we also know is that even with their experts pulling the alternate landing gear at one hundred pounds or one hundred ten pounds it's still deployed every time


with regard to the importance of this case the issues that we see this is important too is what we have here is an individual who was cited for dui who wasn't a drunk driver nothing


prosecution by the way i think the list prosecution goes out because there's probable cause in what the officer did it and you have to obviously have no probable cause even at the first based on a malicious prosecution you're quite


case so we believe that was a misstatement by the prosecutor as to what offer he had previously read and it very well may have been but that's not really for us in the palace court to figure out it would be we would need to do you have an evidentiary


then followed by a warrant to search of that same location based in part on information obtained during that prior search textbook classic case it was mr mcconnell had the burden to argue that the


mean that you know you really don't need an education to be able to respond to something like that or for example the two stories he talks about regarding his wife's encounter with the police first he says in the saying


impartial and non representative sample and then you have to look at what actually was surveyed you know what was available on electronic dockets so the notion that you could draw any conclusions that are reliable or reasonable with respect to how many motions were filed or


what you're getting to the merits now but the merits of the same issue as the jurisdiction in this case that's that's that's where i'd is where i'm trying to focus you keep saying that but it's not because while the appeal was pending he departed


all what happened september one thousand nine hundred eighty two it limits the question but that's not leading and then later what happened with the guerrillas


of being involved with militants judging from his demeanor his testimony that i j noted or found that his custom his testimony about his cousin seemed everything made it up at the last minute and then only later realized that it


father and it's important to recognize that the detentions that are issue here began in one nine hundred eighty five when mr singh the six years old he's asking for details about detentions that occurred when he was six seven eight nine ten years old


it well yes and no i disagree with the the government document that was right up the police summons that certainly could have been authenticated whether or not it has to be it doesn't have to be but in this situation the judge


and in this case not only the judge not specifically making average credibility fine he didn't do that and totally ignores all of the substantial documentation that's present in this case it's our position


was released the father was released the day of the rest he was released three days later judge says this is an inconsistency it really isn't it's more of a language barrier because if you read the text of the letter it looks like it's written in poor english it's actually very similar to that when he


the jets indicates that there was a letter saying that the father and the summer released at the same time which is going inconsistent from the sisters testimony but if you read it like that what it says is the police admitted both of them to the hospital at the same time that doesn't make any


a subsequent copy that was submitted to the court this is the type of thing that made the immigration judge say in the hearing it looks like this was fabricated so looking at the whole record we do have the immigration judge


that the testimony is graphic with respect to the telephone call to the petitioner after the same night that or the day after that the baron changed the elder marriage change were murdered


put into any sort of question by the immigration service that is that is clear right with their strong testimony in favor


turpitude that was the the law that was the practice that was in the foreign affairs manual and the reason is because there was no definition of conviction back then the definition of conviction did not come about until our


decision of the board of immigration appeals with a firm decision of the immigration judge denying relief under the convention against torture for the petitioner and her children we have argued that the thought


be that would be the initial waiver when they requested to remain or went back to the immigration judge or an adjustment they could have waited for the board to determine the issues that they raised as far as that the removal hearing they didn't they decided to go ahead and request an adjustment of


yes if you believe her testimony she said she was not physically restrained jury the operation itself so obviously this


she was able to say was she was opposed to paying much higher fees and that happens state to state you know when you would you want to opportunity to first of all take a look at this quote case that was decided


for a bottle on and we'll hear from the government thank you


however the fact that the asylum application remained an adjudicator for four years while they were in canada is instructive in the sense that they are left


we're looking at is do the facts give rise to a presumption that they would have to rebut and i think the facts do give rise to a presumption i don't know what canada could have done short of putting the petitioners and wine in front of all the other asylum applications they


it certainly would be an easy process for the b i a to make a copy of the letter with sufficient postage indicated on the envelope and even though that may not be contested in ninety nine percent of the cases it's certainly an issue in this particular case and that's all it would take to


announce he had to if he waived the if he raised the constitutional question and statutory question about his right to counsel but that necessarily in determining the prejudice of that


discussed that point directly but my in the context of the camacho case where all of the argument was focusing on whether or not the board itself had the authority to enter an order in the in the first instance that argument just never came up


it he was in total control of this hospital he had complete access to all of the drugs medication and personnel that he needed he refused to help them and we can argue whether that was motivated by his


the judge could have said well when you hire another lawyer then deal


look if we have to review a decision to start hearing an ex parte allegation an issue that would totally remove any possibility of increasing rates all those things would be brought over


and forth it's fairly fluid during that hearing process parties present evidence some evidence suggest that if you if you did the analysis to the british remaining rate which is completely separate from the trigger determination just because there's a trigger determination


characterization weren't grossly inaccurate the fact is that the army got out of the track several more soldiers yelled at him kicked his car kicked him in their heavy boots is quite mannus thing it sounds like road rage i


here i'm trying to get some information i'm trying to get some things straight i do not want you talking now and she's not going to talk and she's trying to correct him who's he going to get his information from himself and that's what happened


that's what this court has to find the commission didn't pine that the commission of posed the wrong level of sanctions based upon a wrong level of the science of rating in a vetting live this there are no questions


course you would want to do mediation within the immigration service or homeland security whoever's got it now or would you want to come to the ninth circuit mediation process i believe it will be within the immigration process for him that's from


can say you know i have a child here who's an iron lung or whatever you know arrest for greater things and when they don't have that equipment in mexico and they didn't present that that would be a pretty clear


to panama and not to china and further with respect to china there's nothing in this record here suggest that the policy the course of the population control policy of china it's employed against those who are returning to china with more than one


credible that the risk the petitioner testified that they saw with their own eyes everyday chinese were picked up and departed from panama if you can if you try to get documents to stay in phantom of the government they


of the new baseline area lower area sixty one will not intersect the area of impact of the barrack mine now this is important because baseline area for the state in the battle is defined as hydrographic areas or area sixty one


everything in one permit document that's why you incorporate all prior permits reviews into that document and it's good for notice for unfortunate purposes so you can tell in one document what are all these


event even if he did support the president he never expressed that opinion and he didn't express an opinion how were the rebels able to determine that he opposed them he never expressed an opinion he stated to


told the immigration judge that arrest happened on august fifteenth when you read the record i think the immigration judge you can see you spoke in a lot of general terms of her and her decision in terms of her exasperate


and foremost list regards to the rape that i think found it implausible that's petitioner would not tell her husband her first lawyer who was male and any one about the fact that she was raped by government soldiers at her home and while in prison and this is that


female genital mutilation cases has found that because the daughters designed to be sent back to the country and this is going to happen to her that there is a persecution of the parents and they


conditions in somalia during the period of record upon review of our brief on the record leave and i concluded that the immigration judge's decision can't quite be read that way that's not a fair reading i think his references to improvements in country dishes


the court my name is jennifer like i do you know i represent the respondents the issue before this court is whether the immigration officer properly reinstated a prior order of removal and the answer is yes he did properly reinstate


non credible contrition can be subject to torture if returned to the country morgan little even if that potential can't be believed on on asylum grounds for example it may be that


exactly he proceeded for fourteen years under this immigration problem or which was opened up and present he never knew that he'd been ordered to court and finally when he got after fourteen years of living


the county's website or the county recorder's office and you find a relevant number and then you have a relevant number you can pull up the deed from the county recorder's office and then from


your view of the complaint is that they have basically brought some kind of a nationwide class action to recover from injuries suffered by anyone anywhere in the country that arose out of this yes no i don't believe that you are in fact they've


precipitating factor that the occupants of the ford then proceeded to lie about to the federal government for the next sixteen months with that i want to address the estimated crimes act question


may please the court steve city for the petitioners i hope the


that's what harry was getting in the interest payment and i don't know why he put me on that i didn't do anything on the board but this is all part of the lowly because what mr probably didn't need was a reprice or


it's all it's all new but i apologize i i misunderstood in your reply brief on page twelve you cite funder for animals as the best authority for saying this is one integrated plan yes sure but in that case the court found that there wasn't


is a determination of whether he was held during those two hundred and forty four dollars days where he's in prison every day that the judge has told him he's supposed to be at home there's got to be a remedy lender at some point in the proceeding maybe this was


because there's no binding authority for that so what else is unique you know if you go down in the judgment the next line there's a checkbox and it says the court makes the following


but it says remanded for resentencing under one statute and so that's our position on


sentencing under the act itself is completely discretionary even though the act is not mention let alone mandate a plenary resentencing and even though the act itself is limited on its terms limited to recent thing re


how that applies to the customer practice argument with the failure to train under monday when the liability because i don't see any allegations in the complaint that would would support either those two claims


so in terms of the failure to train is the reason the court dismissed is because the court was looking for a pattern of untrained employee actions however


factor i mean you could have whether you did it wanted to as a strategic matter is a separate question but you clearly could have put it in in a motion to dismiss where it's reference any document that's referenced in the complaint you could put it in because you should


i suppose that might be sufficient if he's making that suggest your honor the problem is we don't have evidence of that in this case we don't have clear evidence that he was directing her to take photos in this particular case the fact is that with his low


without our allies complains recall that the california courts have held that if you on reasonably delay in seeking rescission if you wait and see how the last plays out and then


id noted it is the flip side of the saying just you they're just they're saying oh it's perfectly reasonable what we did we funded the settlement you know all we're doing is asking a court to decide if


two thousand and thirteen she never tracked it even a question about it in deposition she agreed that this was her statement of this is the raised this i think it is i'm not suggesting that she retracted it i'm giving you an explanation for why she would


disavowing throughout the entirety of the case as early as the investigation that she was ever subject to sexual harassment at that she ever had a problem with any of the


i understand if we give any consideration to the declaration the timber harvesting is like a month away so clocks kind of ticking and i'm struggling to figure out how best to let somebody who's in a


real key question here today is whether this panel should create a circuit split by rejecting the blue the reasoning of the blue opinion from the th circuit well that's an interesting way to phrase the question


interesting question and i don't think there's anything wrong and thinking about it i don't suppose that the district court is bound to have to think about that there's some collateral estoppel of factor or the fact that


l right may please the court many ms dan paulson i am the assistant federal defender representing cinda collins and this is a sentencing appeal from a sentence imposed for d a supervised release


previous pre application created pre refugee status as a matter of law means that in the five year period she can show good moral character


a new director of revenue in oregon is that why are we doing it this way this is the dick you let's let's we can we can we need to tax intangible property and we're going to do it for all of these these fourteen votes who are listed in the code i don't believe the record


consequential ok it was certainly consequential in her decision because every every finding in her decision was based on the assumption


asking well are you worse now than you were then look claiming mrs low and freely admitted no i'm no worse now but the point is she was just able before and she still disable now the elder was


district court should have made that do we send it back down to the district court and say listen you as a district court judge need to make the determination of whether this should be sent to arbitration and if the district court says yes it should go to


have to go through the claims process no well go i'm so sorry i thought you were going to make a final point which means it goes to court no i do not agree that it would go to court there are all sorts of issues arising out of or


contract interpretation principles there's a federal contract interpretation principle that says if there's ambiguity we have to assume the the parties did not agree to arbitrate well that that particular type of


this case i could look at pay stubs and at that point there's no way you can reference to the agreement of turning very quickly to most of opposing all those arguments before asked for instance for it or ask questions directed towards the equitable


the heart of this case was really free will mr taylor at every stage argued that each of the women who worked for him made a choice of their own free will to work as prostitutes and that they need a choice of their own free will to have an


are those extraordinary circumstances yes st of all the kind of cocoa exclusion does not exclude does not mean that they can't they don't have to comply with the forest plan


that it has been sent back to the forest before to redo their hiding cover analysis because it was inadequate so here the question logically is wait a nd for twenty years in an area that's naturally deficient hunting cover all of us


long as the forest service is maintaining fifty percent cover there is no challenge or you are responsible to indicate there's still a decision that has to be made i mean you theoretically could take it back to fifty percent but


their posing council's argument that there were extraordinary circumstances because the government failed to consider the entire roadless expanse and the potential designation as wilderness i


dollars release me from that and then the new named plaintiff would carry on the burden to care to to pay the car the r p c your honor is a governs the relationship between mr brady and my firm and so the settlement to go initially and get him out and the defendants were not good


or it allows it requires it ok let's back up because that was not my understanding where is the required that is in brady versus auto zone your honor that is what we went to the washington supreme court on and they held consistent with the police case that it is


except as to the witness falls completely short of meeting the legal standard and that's true health says that you can only consider whether the defense is predominantly fitting based on the evidence asserted we agree the written waivers are easy and


referenced in interiors washburn letter is in fact consistent with the state's interpretation so there is no history of anyone prior to acceptance identifying it that way in history of negotiations shows that the


city was very slow to see documents and it produced documents on the very last day the discovery was open that included out that included facts i believe e mails by new route and then statements maybe related by chalabi around that time that we wanted to


national emergency determined that the particular national emergency here is one that requires use of the armed force none of the plaintiffs go back to what the president said to to meet that requirement so the president determined


that bring for example the states concerns about their environmental laws into the zone of interest because now we're talking about a statute that sets criteria for what will be a waiver of environmental laws why doesn't that bring them into


right correct ok so what were the allegations in the complaint that show that that's really what she's up to yes your honor in the paragraphs forty three and fifty


create a constitutionally protected interest such that this rises to the level of the not dial up of federal or state due process right and the state the district court correctly


she says i been to this campground and i've stayed here and it struck me in particular that it talks about traveling across douglas county taking her through the study area


stated that he tested that receiver with a clickable machine gun parts and it did in fact shoot as a machine gun so to say that the government focused only on the designed by portion is


to verify that but once it was filed and it and it didn't change the date why why doesn't for take the position of saying you know thank you very much instead this is referred to it from portsmouth compliance well the commission didn't find that


about the requirements of prior notice and filing it is a requirement the commission takes very serious seriously as a substantive issue because of the federal power act even if it is it is secondary in this case so to to go to the main


reiners asked about the implementation agreement and the basis for percs decision to require to be filed it for and you were correct about the sole basis for that decision was that for x determination that the implementation agreement had


that is mr niles what i'm sorry when mr mean you had came on the case that that's where a lot of the discussion does occur in this he said his lawyer says ok that it really wasn't it wasn't actually joined by


the categorical approach was designed to prevent these very many trials from from going forward the fallout of allowing this type of inquiry to move forward is that there will inevitably be either on this issue or other


and they were they didn't necessarily return to the part of the country where there they had been you know initially threatened and and he had privy to that to the corruption of the


he pled to a felony right there at the top you didn't pull the misdemeanor plea form or his counsel didn't hold the misdemeanor plea form on the second page of the plea form under subsection d he pled to


pages for a two dollars to forty three dollars in the record and if we look at that exhibit last there's only two articles in there from two thousand and fourteen most of those articles are for many years earlier


by sufficient evidence that she possessed transferred or used the identity of her cousin to submit a fraudulent life insurance application by including false information on the application form and forging her cousin's electronic signature under this court's precedent


that it is very confusing because of the way that american income life the insurance company and their subsidiary insurance agents the way that they paid out commissions and bonuses is how they


did the tax court said is we predicted ohio law based on three federal cases number one then they said that


clear abuse of discretion that the district court committed as applied to the facts of this case this case involves a bait and switch the attorneys especially appeared here in the earlier proceeding under the old rule


ok mr horton was hired on as a general or a skilled labor in the tanks and voids division not withstanding the fact that his pay stub said blaster on it he never worked as a blaster for the six days correct correct he worked tending a


this point he can no longer do so brett because he's no longer in a slightly well as one does that happened when when did he lose his asylum status when the h s moved to reopen and that motion to reopen was granted


my concern that if for whatever reason you don't get it or it gets misplaced where is the backup where's the tackler system where is the safeguard against a case just falling through the


entire findings i found the government has proven its for the allegations here when she was at the disposition hearing for that is not allowed and why why do isn't why would


which way you came down on this but nobody did that my other my other response to that your honor is a little bit more technical and it's simply that the rules didn't require counsel to make an objection that once the judge had made articulate is his finding there is no requirement in the


what we get as far as what you've argued well if we get past that i should say and rights the chevron question what's what's reasonable arbitrary or rational about defining


because i don't think that's what the regulations plain language says and the district court actually held that only disorderly conduct and other conduct were defined by a b c n d yeah but i don't have to agree with the district court


but for the to work well but complain it has to be someone in a similar position in the market this market that i'd niched out to to do the implement the program there has to


that the sentence was probation and forty eight hours in jail and take a look at this as a real human being i think there is there's a duality to your question here you think there's the cock the crime involving moral


appears to be to have that and that too was error because the claim cannot be granted under d two either first of all this court has already held that the question regarding whether an attorney suffers from a natural


things that happened after the trilogy of cases so to summarize your honor the only two claims that we're discussing in this petition that are affected that are raised in after


tell me i have to do so e p a looked at this language that says intended known or reasonably foreseen to be it doesn't say known to have been it says known to be so e p a thinks ok well that's forward


can because you said that's discretionary so will the appendix tell us whether you actually are excluding conditions of use that are putting their clients at risk because they're exposed to the chemical through those conditions of use i think all


rules set up a system that will inform the individual determinations that are later reviewable will the framework roll aspects of it be reviewable later or do they only have the sixty days now so that that


those present significant risks to the public and under the plain language of the definition those counts and so if you're worried that they should be using those because it affects how they aggregate with something else it like tips the balance on the other


time he was told there was nothing to be done so and you know his most recent detention in two thousand and seven when he spoke to his most recent counsel mr helt and there was no question of what he could do in fact he only wanted


at the actual consequences for people similarly situated to mr obama type of she committed an error that this court found and called the holder is not permissible it's not permissible for the judge to


riemann seems to say we're sending this back on the issue of mental competency so to me that's a remained that says put in evidence on the issue of your mental state it doesn't say it's restricted to a


arguing here just for me just say somehow these statutes that i have in front of me are ambiguous and therefore i ought to be reading something in and i'm trying to figure out why it's not clear and


applied last question which is not in the record and which is just something that i thought of owed can this taxpayer still pay the dark and go to district court in this case yes your honor


for whoever was present but i'm not certain now i think we're kind of missing each other and that's what we're trying to find i understand are standard under voluntary manslaughter which is one ninety two as anything else included in that statute i


showing that he admitted to that here that count two on attempted murder remains the same correct yes but they're but the original three offenses in the original indictment aren't even present in the final judgment which makes it very different than cabinet cavanagh


failure to address the probative country conditions expert declaration and opinion so the expert declaration in this case concluded that petitioner was at high risk of being tortured and killed by cartel members the expert also spoke to


person is seeking asylum so for asylum persons purposes past persecution by regulation must occur in the country from which you're seeking protection in contrast the torture convention statute and regulations contain no such geographical


but over all tire's cross examination of sergeant david walking's was very effective and one very key point that he got him to actually flip on was that he testified on recross that


convention against torture based on the independent evidence that's contained in the rocker this includes the background evidence supported and submitted in support of the five hundred and eighty nine as this court found and new rule country conditions alone can play a decisive role and granting cat


as well about them harassing her wanting on the petitioner to come back to china so we have that we also have his fiance's testimony which was largely overlooked and his fiance was in contact with his mother in china and learned a lot of


criminal justice system that according to the human rights watch tortures nationwide common serious and entrenched and as i stated this is a more significant case than normal that they have taken the step of contacting someone in the


error yes we are what's the legal error illegal air is doubt instead of looking at the evidence under the substantial evidence through the that the board did it


that there is not that there is no evidence in this in this record there are two separate pieces of evidence and this has nothing to do with the expert who testified but they are the expert did testify that the v r s kept very very specific


figure out why and so now i'm actually posing that question and i'm interested in your answer but i have to say it seems like a pretty futile exercise we've been launched off on and


the fact that he was deeply involved his political party and they received threats from the m p and that may be but i guess the lead in here was that the letter hadn't been considered and it did seem that the i j a had that letter in front of him


printing out what people say and especially leaving out the names of who says what and i got concerned enough about this that i called the secretary of state today and i'm waiting for a call back and then they tell me this is legal and that's fine but that doesn't mean it's ethical


but it will be managed by t v so we'll be looking at that we don't want twelve or fourteen different websites or say fourteen different web hosts but we will be working on the fact that you could have your


compas last year those are made the same as well so those are all the no increases at all the good news we did increase the tipping fees or the disposal fees at the material recovery facility on may first we have a split


in county numbers and our members are all eighteen towns in towns of jenin county that belong to the district and it's fifty dollars a ton for out of district seems like a big jump you should know that the regional


a piece of mail that i get every friday that i'm on a bill to unsubscribe from that i would love to not get delivered to me that goes never goes into my house administrator in the recycle bin is there any


any way that that effort is is evolving but so that's three collaborative co working shared spaces for innovators i don't know where that goes but i think that's a terrific sign


municipal road grants in aid program any road up the memo that accompanies this bottom line is last year on the state provided grants to communities we elected not to


this this isn't a quote is that in quotes because it was a quote it's in quotes because it's what's been changed but i don't care whether the second towns is in there or you gave that second towns come out


design of buildings and cities most interestingly over the last ten years by twenty twenty there will be nine billion mobile connections on the planet that means we do a better job getting smart phone technology in people's pockets


reinvestment the polishing of downtown you are unique in having a city department manage church street that's a very unique model you are unique to


recollection is that it was somebody from cumberland farms who spoke before us about that particular shaking saying that they were hoping to work something out is that the one you were referencing i think i'm not sure of


necessarily realize just how globally connected from want is particularly the recycling world we are fortunate in that the only way stream or recycling stream that has been affected has been mixed paper the rest of the materials


like just as a comparison so if you were to mash the two budgets together this year for f one one thousand you would notice that our revenues are proposed to go up five percent in our expenses up one point six you will see on the net on the bottom line the last


signal state wasn't sure they'd come back they're not comfortable with the signal that design is going to start again that's probably five to seven years out for a significant intersection this one is


some of ours we want to program the now looks at what roads in the village need to be done what roads in the town need to be done on a pro tea basis and if you put them together if we were to consolidate what you have to do what's the cost to do that so it's another


and the state has criteria that doesn't necessarily coincide with what you want in a community to make it walkable so now you have to to you know it just it's a it's a flexibility control as i'm reading it yeah look at rue fifteen in but


has residences and ones that mean transit will also be a should be a part of that too in terms of ok what happens as transit becomes more proliferate in the sort of the you know the outside ring of chit and county that will be something i know i know the


to see the trees are in a very important part of environmental planning because of those systems that they provide cutting them all down is actually going to worsen some problems and really not provide the things that people enjoy


fall behind we want to invest in that key asset at the same time that we're investing in other important infrastructure in the city so so thank you council roof and i hope that i trust that the charter committee i know they'll look at do good


powers and in doing so and i think it's really important step forward in our transportation system tension speaking of our transportation system i do you want to again alert the council this one has me a


forth it would be more official and more effective to a distinct lack of somebody who has to leave or get dismissed on whatever for whatever reason they'd have controlled the lock out of the account so they still preserve all the history of what


apt but i personally would like to see some sort of accessible process by which families who really can't make those fees work have some sort of either subsidy or personal and that's kind of where i'm coming from you


you know certainly one big project that i think probably folks have some memory of in recent years is looking at the library city hall and police department conversation at the brand center so we had a price tag on that projects from a few years


or get a sense of like what this can look like on main street so the data collection for weaver will be there for traffic counts mukul traffic comes traffic speeds before and after you get a sense of you know


that you require that guidance to make that decision that the housing commission is the policy extension arm of your council so your direction to them of gives some targets and ideas the one that is the direction


i'll go into but we're not proposing are any increases to this always management fee that will remain at twenty seven dollars a ton we are also not proposing any increases to the trash fees at the drop of centers we are also not proposing any


china was taking everything in any condition the u s plants were more picky as they should be as they should have as china should have been all along so now what this is requiring sworn all of us in the industry to literally clean up our act


think that the m e t c d which is the manual on uniform traffic control devices which we follow which is most never municipalities go i think they state that the highway meets or exceeds six thousand vehicles per day


in order to technically warrant a stop sign and or twelve month period five or more such crap car crashes has happened over two year period as an alternative if


not sure how we do this here when we post the minutes on line after they've been approved but something as formal as a petition is usually made a formal part of the minutes after the fact so therefore if the petition is not described to the letter in the minutes it's attached


trying to get to a more concise version of minutes with the back up of the channel seventeen tapes to really see what the discussion was about and if you know what that you have the the audio tape


intent do you want some in capsule ation of what the issue was just so that we can give our minutes taker direction i understand commas


on line forty five the third word is change the specific so it now becomes approval of specific meds was on the agenda not a insert general discussion of the insert process of handling


we're trying to get to at least eight healthy trees so we have no problem in supporting well it's your call because i mean when you bring up your proposal has to be weighed in different ways obviously what's the effect on the plan i mean that's the that's what i don't know


probably not you know that much longer for this world but a lot of people really like those trees so that's just saying i'm trying to come to compromise but i don't think it's fair to characterize that you know somehow we've been shooting down all


excellent so here are the commitments and we've got a number of these sites so we commit to operate burlington telecom as a turnkey business will utilize and build upon the technical technology infrastructure and to provide


looking there are some that are successful programs and there are some that are unsuccessful for example inclusionary zoning it can increase affordable housing or it can decrease housing that's produced and how detrimental impacts so


right now we have no plan and the ones we have permitted and we believe are pretty the one we have them believe we believe will be under construction this year which will only be one is truly the integrated housing unit


that because i thought last time we we've talked we've always talked about a permit being required for lots less than an acre what i what i did here is i left the language as playing department and planning commission had


address and i just note that last october the trustees accepted the recommendations but we didn't approve the recommendations and that it's an important nuance


just say that there were just says here are the recommendations it doesn't say how are you going to implement these are still time like you said here's what we think you should do and that's great and then all the sudden we have a document that says here's how we're going to do all these recommendations and it was an


and full of that and they continue to have a commission that looks to the question of religion town and elaine you said you know pretty much is decided that was my record nation when i first came i approached


move forward the plan is to continue design development right up until the point of a bond vote at that point we expect to finish construction documents from the bond vote into


i think you should cross that bridge five years from now and decide if you still need that clause or not and i think after five years the agreement could sunset it could it could live


definite impressions of the words the select words impressions and staff there was also a document staff's definitions and we reviewed all of them together and these definitions here are an amalgam


intentionally disregarding with any reasonable person would have no no no that was certainly a judgment but it applies equally here where mister


conspiracy to to submit false bits to craft which were which is another predicate act of mail fraud and and we also


be based on the contract and sometimes parole is admissible sometimes parole is admissible but here there you have no other evidence that should be admissible based


case but but just to pick up on the point that your honor was diverting to the the this context does not involve probable cause that is not the standard it is involved the highly discretionary as that or of where whether to revoke


the question is whether or not gonzales declare that juvenile records are entitled to the same protection well clearly i believe it did and that this court determined


meant to add rights it is not meant to impair any rights that exists now and and and someone came along and probably said well you know i'm concerned that this is going to result in monetary judgments but you know i'm also concerned that the


that you don't you don't know you don't know one way or the other well is that the end of that i'm not clear on what your answer to judge what his question was yes i know that there are processors that not that are not


clear that periodic statements can be stopped on the for a court action or adjudicatory proceeding and there's at no argument and defendants have not made one that a nontraditional foreclosure under california law is a court action or


residing i understand that in the state court action really murderers should have been named and it wasn't so i think there was an error in this the court judgement but we have the five star case the


of each and every old growth redwood tree in the project area depicting the amount of cut in phil and pavement in each tree's structural root zone in analyzing the construction work and providing an expert assessments and it was error for


fails to determine and then port words which are consider an important aspect of a problem not looking at all at long term driving noise is precisely that failure of consideration


understanding or having taken account of everything on our serials labels my st response there is that's really an issue i think that has been played away by the admitted facts and if you look at our


so that there's a little bit unusual process at the unix p d in that a supervisors were the one that rick was required to take down the complaint not something doesn't go directly to human resources where the process is if i have a complaint i go to my


person to make allegations those present to the effect that the plaintiffs were engaged in black now about those comments that were made to that professional community and i think that's the that's again


so i don't know how does really interesting because you know basic basic christian doctrine would be that the who the person primarily responsible for somebody spiritual


and having a primary care doctor who can that that is what public health experts say makes a difference to whether someone gets vaccinated or not not whether the vaccine itself is subsidized by the federal government but whether


the benefits st not for example been steady productive and it helps kids do better in school it increases graduation rates by up to eighteen percent in girls it helps people maintain employment it provides access to fresh


emotion and where they're not publicly advertise that they're in the except service so there isn't the kind of public advertising it's like for a legal assistant position and the two places


tough right underneath that is the dose and i think to the product you're buying either one thousand micrograms five thousand micrograms or ten thousand micrograms and then right underneath that is the benefit


that the direction one very specific direction that was given here is how much he's going to be charged for by the basic allowance for housing to set up the target of defense on a annual basis on a myriad of bacteria is that right i thought i thought


investigation is more serious to the market than an internal investigation so to the extent that we're assessing the market's reaction and whether it's reasonable the answer is that


can't rely on that investigation whether it's civil or criminal but why is it correct for us to do this at the twelve b six stage and wouldn't that really expand loops respectfully no here's the reason


agency veil piercing alter ego stop all rd party beneficiary and therefore there was no reason to adopt this additional theory closely related


i was thinking about how garnishment usually occurs the vast majority of garnishment cases in my experience it's a creditor a judgment creditor garnishing the debtors bank account or garnishing the


company that's objective and not disputed going in which is a rapid decline in the business and let me just thank you for point that your honor raised because there is no evidence that there were thank you or record that was different than what was projected by updated


this is a fairly mess and you can't say it was a devastating for them or the or their order because that eight isn't what we plead and be it what it was something that wasn't made up and could have been made


normal minimum requirement for entry whether the agency does is it looks at the the language the information in the o h as an authoritative


court did review those declarations and what those declarations show is nothing at all relevant with respect to entering into the arbitration agreement in fact


exempt from the standard a one inch pipe and each one of these engineers testified to asked to be turned under the n c standard seven dollars times if you're using a typo sprinkler head as the go between the twenty and thirty pounds of torque so it is it's


meaningful in forcible and you have a new law and in that situation rule sixty five dollars places it is the decision of which of those two should control squarely within the discretion of the district court


as to the fact that there is still pending in this case i gather that's right there is nothing else pending in the face other than this one federal claim and one corresponding the negligence claim


that was not and not to see to claim under for ninety six a now again to go back to the original point i think it's really important to remember here that this is still harmless error even if the court disagrees but with the


so it does i think technically all of those and i would say it's up to this court's discretion and i'm happy to address the merits and counsel you think that even though there was not a notice of appeal we


well maybe a problem here that's not well if you're honor i mean the way the way that the jury instructions were crafted where there are two separate it intentional discrimination is separated out


what we need to bated on the th and i was there arguing at all of those three conferences on that date were a set drafted by the district court and circulated two days earlier that did not sufficiently resemble anything


had all this information that you've talked about the front of them they look at it nonetheless i cry interest and i think a lower level of care would would have been sufficient was you know so i'm trying to focus on just this letter because this is the treating


into this was a negligent diagnosis case so i think under the governing case law this is where lee falls into mike with the type of cases that don't are generally like the big case where the person


that information was not contained was not presented to the jury it was not unreasonable it was not objectively unreasonable to screen the jury from that information into that in your honor


and sadistic infliction of course by correctional officers but it also protects them against other risks and dangers that come with the jail environment now in robbins versus me jim which is really on all fours and i


justify discipline under the balance and what the court did however in this case was attempt to devalue the speech to suggest that it perhaps was not on a significant matter of public concern even though the defendants


him to to patrol where it's not disputed that patrol officers may be put in a position where deadly force may be necessary but the difference it is the


determinations we never got our hearing before triple a on many individualized issues here and so that's why this and in opting for it and we believe it's for the court to decide


you know i'll take three and a half almost all the talking the trial court as the judges know the divorce settlement the husband disclosed the other six percent interest in the company of


government of done here seems to me in severe tension with both of those things st as to firmer settlement there's obviously no firm resettlement firm or settlement as i think you quite correctly said is based upon a


is provide trainings and workshops for people who are not actual clients unfortunately it's not the end and i saw that but i was going to say i'm persuaded by that given that th circuit immigration law is not


sort of making my point that the exclusion applies without regard to who has brought the intellectual property claim i think that may be ambiguous for a different reason i'm not trying


necessary finding of that intent and deception of public and none of that was done by clear and convincing evidence so for that reason alone the district court should be reversed and they should be remanded for the just requote to analyze the


of to a man is due extraordinary deference in this case above and beyond abuse of discretion because it occurred after the appellant she's media told he had already received leave to him


two amendments at least it's plural because we've only had one amendment and while i understand the appellants are arguing that there could be some procedural macha nations you could have attached a nd draft to the motion for reconsideration those


theory because the kind of the the report of dr caymans was expressly rejected for the purposes of showing causation so you cannot compute causation and reliance across the class


and his testimony is that he was stabbed in the knees i believe and that's would seem interesting and was not mentioned why isn't that enough to support an adverse credibility determination under is substantial evidence to enter you're going


this court's model instruction number nine eight specifically holds that you must prove causation of some injury any injury to establish a constitutional violation and here the jury found no such causation which means following jury instruction


it's ok for the district to award that one dollar then you have to go to the b m w versus gore factors you know those factors i'm not going to start restating them but with you look at the degree of represents


or confidentiality provisions of the contract which are in that exhibit one i think there is there any legitimate claim under there that you would argue this not need to be arbitrated or are you what i'm trying to figure out is are you


say at that sir but i'm trying to figure out why i appreciate that i didn't mean to suggest otherwise but this is the context i think the district was trying to figure out was trying to get his arms around in order and figure out when there's a common answer to this question


model and it has no application to a case like this the district court didn't reject that argument it just didn't reach it this is a contract dispute with government purchasers office depot says despite the fact that a i g wrote this policy in march two


notice when they took out this insurance policy that exclusion would apply to these parties we've briefed the other defenses and our answer brief will rest on the briefing as to those there are no further questions will


discretion standard of the denial of the junction how did the district judge abuse her discretion by not accepting that that was the rationale for the proposition that it would be equally


movement in america and many many corporations have done exactly the same thing the biggest corporations and even plaintiffs members have declared their dedication to you made requirements the fact that point is don't like the specific requirements


list that came out that here in this is a critical point your honor the record establishes that even though the defendants publish list from time to time the price is actually paid or individually negotiated some defendants some purchasers like wal mart i know


insured says i'm not going to sell the carrier that holds true whether you're talking about indemnity or defense because the insurance going to say look i haven't care you're paying for this i don't


swallow the bindle but he didn't the pathologist didn't make a finding that it was caused by the taser not by that is i don't think they can make that determination so that was hugely disputed a trial whether the whether the swallow whether the


one why is that different because in that case we are simply pointing out that the original decision in two thousand and fifteen was based on a false premise as we now know and it needs to be examined in light of the regulations and the


your honor i would i would disagree that it makes him look bad that he he did offer to arbitrate under certain terms in the aaa which obviously comes with it a whole set of rules and procedures to


reliance on the unconstitutional propensity instruction because there are cases where the prosecution didn't stress the instruction and you balance that with the sufficiency of the evidence that that extension of experts of the


excerpts of the record and again it eighteen when it found convincing conduct for which the jury actually acquitted a senior airman louis there were five specifications that went before the jury involving four complaining


let me change let me change the let me change the emphasis here i'm having a tough time why we should apply donald douglas to california after eleven o two six it seems to me


ordinarily the insurance company where it has complete thing claims to the money just dumps all the money into an interplay heater i guess those of us who've represented insurance companies of that more than once you just dump it all in and it's their problem


does not address the issue of how an overpayment would result from using total hours worked as opposed to monitor time hours of work the defendant wants to talk about the two steps when you're when you're


absolute minimum statutory damages is the most that might be sensible but there are there's a provision for statutory damages so the fact that you didn't know i'm not sure that's a free pass


of it that wasn't relevant to the bankruptcy court because the guarantors were not before it so all disputes before the bankruptcy court with respect to the claims between jem tath and the debtor were necessarily concluded on may th and again


please go there and point out to us what the allegations are that establish a da claim as opposed to an i d unique point yes your honor i notice i'm almost out of time


classic segregation and exclusion on the basis of disability he never got the chance to get any instruction or to have any of the things under his eye he because he couldn't even he


had a case where a teacher walked in created an anti islamic curriculum certainly we would give it to you no matter where it's from we try to satisfy the court the


so that there are at least three nonparty claim preclusion relationships in this case that were recognized by taylor one of those three is adequate representation and we have adequate representation for two reasons number one is in addition to an alignment


incorrect analysis of the law that this was added statute his hands were tied and he could not he could not interfere with officer cardona as promotion because he was informed there was out a statute that


result he wanted he wants to retry everything that existed before but that's simply not what's at issue here on the on the contrary some of what happened before


have been the type of policies the chief of police may do they tolerate or condone excessive force you have a very public verdict that was in the l a d times it was on television and you are promoted officer sergeant in three weeks the message


this time where we want police accountability you have a department which has provided absolutely no accountability here you have a department which said that we condone the use of excessive force we can go so far to have a