elements are substantially similar to relook at everything i think a combination of both i think the appellant if we look at everything there's no similarities


is slightly different in cases where a physician's failure to diagnose or treat has caused the injury in a traditional case the physician inflicts a clearly identifiable injury by some referred of action but in a case like


but the inmate i don't see any mechanism in the regulations for the inmate to ask for this relief perhaps they can but and to the extent they can now i don't have that documentation that sort of seems to go to the first point raised


the corporation is listed as capital z capital s but that was not your honor and i understand that but the reality here is the actual title owner of the mistake by the way and how they


little difficulty because they needed to show only that the release requested that the agency follow the correct procedures may influence the agency's ultimate decision it seems here we have a unique situation for us in the ninth circuit in


thing yes that my understanding of the purpose of the bank is that it's to foster the use of us things so for an elegy facility it's maybe a turbine manufactured in wisconsin or something will be used in building of it


that plaintiffs have never suggested particular additional conditions that would have made a difference without causing the the borrowers to


tell me i don't have a contract then the filed rate doctrine does not apply to me versus the duty of care they introduce to contaminated element into a product they were delivering to me whether it's a


arguments of counsel are not evidence in the case and that their recollection as to the facts control your honor they were given that generic instruction they were not however specifically advised as to this particular error which


identification was based on multiple factors so if you look at volume five of excerpts the record eight twenty three he says quote ensure one o'clock in the morning when she's sedated and exhausted and in shock she may not have mentioned the scar her memory


your count count co counsel bolo told judge also there were no specific allegations our reading of the complaint indicates that there are whether there are sufficient


completely so i'm going to defer to those briefs i gave all of the facts and the specific information in my briefs as far as this case is concerned and specially the report of the reply brief because i had a chance to see what the


please a court good morning my name is john giffen i represent david rhodes as a defendant and i would like to address and i have split the r thirty minutes with mr


that so i just don't see i mean the council will raise these what if kind of questions well maybe the jury could have decided that he was negligent but they never argued that he was negligent they


circumstances downstream such that there's a substantial penalty if a provider does does not distribute quest diagnostic testing it so it's a defacto exclusive deal you do not


so they can't even get in there to make a quote to try to get the pull through business that makes it even more effective so there's more in this circuit nine hundred seventy seven if is sufficiently appreciable numbers of buyers of except


say we recognize it was made and so we'll consider it on the merits and so i have to i can't rely on forfeiture entirely because the court of appeal expressly ruled on the merits and i think the


over and over and over and over that might rise to the level but there the supreme court said no reasonable person could reasonably believe that this constituted a sexually hostile work environment and that's because remember how high that standard is


not he has to show that he would not have been transferred reassigned to safety unless he made it with an aussie made the complaints to chief harmes so that's the standard what he has to prove but when we look at what


those cases and throughout the throughout this term the policy is the physical the physicality of the of the of the concept it's the physical laws your it's a physical damage under your view the neutral appraiser would get designated the he would then


the of the occurrence the stresses and damage to the aircraft are such that it would not be recertified by the f a a that it's a total loss so they've admitted that right but the total loss may not be attributable to the


in response to councils argument i would just like to make a couple brief points the first is that the district court did not air and finding that the parties are bound by the neutral umpires determination


thank you we spoke a lot this morning about the probation eligibility issue and a little bit about the concurrent consecutive issue but i want to emphasize there are a lot of problems with this plea colloquy it starts off there's confusion about which information is governing there's confusion about


your honor i don't think that he could go to was not available to him he could not have used the eight o two procedure in all religious claim no based on the text so the text says that inmates who attempt to file grievances to appeal for actions outlined in one of these


regulations of the loans that it wishes to do we don't see anything on reasonable about having this consumer protection requirement of getting consent clear getting clear consent to be


a separate writing signed by signed by the person to be bound why isn't that a reasonable reason sure because it's not in the statute the statute doesn't say you have to have a separate contract that would be reading into the statute something


but the other one has to do with whether there is actually a pre recorded voice or the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and there is no evidence as i


federally controlled substance only and again it resulted in a higher guideline range for mr bullard and the court made clear that when she sent mr bill into one hundred and forty months in prison that was still an extremely long sentence and her sentence was clearly anchored in the guidelines so there's every


match up because the california code or the california elements of the crime or still more broadly there's extensive california case law on the issue of cohabitant the third issue we brought up in our brief is the residual clause being unconstitutionally


spoken to that direct point that if the board i don't think it spoke to that direct pointed matter of asia strada because they were dealing with a statute like we have here where the domestic english tip is an element but based on their decision here i would say that's a pretty reasonable inference that maybe that is a distinction that is important to them but the


and any panel that has to review a situation like this so there is a humanitarian aspect to it and i like the court take that into consideration the only thing i know i'm short on time that i want to bring office that just


that but there's no circuit split on this issue the issue of the mini miranda from eleven in the sea of cases the plaintiffs have cited not a single one has held that that many miranda is required to communications between a turds we would certainly point the


first what would what's it matter to you in terms of fairness for it forget the leverage that this or that law gives you just as a matter of fairness involves of reaching agreement we have always one of the implored to deal with us sit down and deal with us that that has to


otherwise their duty of prudence is the same as everybody else's since then the law of these other circuits especially the fifth circuit in whitley has been to say well any stock price drop that a reasonable fiduciary might fear from correctness closure is


talking about right but the one to be artificially it seems to me and correct me if i'm wrong because i do struggle with this it seems to me that what this says is this presume the fraud and says making the disclosure or presumes the heir whatever


public we can do a spin off anytime we want without consequences we're choosing not to we're not going to do a spin off this time but just so you know we could if we wanted to it would be fine we're not going to but we could but we're not going to that


way to understand what happened and that's that's why the language is important in that language i would go back to suggest that there's many ways to express vesting of a health care promise there's no magic words yellow


thank you thank you thank you counsel the case will be submitted will now take a brief recess


it looked and saw that i believe it was cocaine or heroin i'm sorry i can't remember the drug but the name of the drug was specifically listed in the in the charging document and that's the same here in this case marijuana is specifically listed in


account counts all involve three different controlled substances and so the court explained each would would support a separate criminal count the sentences would not merge i don't really know that in in the ninth circuit decision united states versus


law are never elements that's not something we were able to address in our answering brief because it was raised for the first time in the reply and so if if the court intends to reach this issue we would request you know maybe the


easements and trimming trees was significant the authority made the decision initially that it would seek federal funding to assist in this project and the federal funding is available in certain instances for off airport hazard mitigation hazard obstruction removal


in your honor we have no quarrel with if the tests were done purely for a medical reason then there would be no fourth amendment concern here else would it be done for well it's in to investigate crime on behalf of the state you're on in


by name that they boycotted with and they entered into agreements with them not to do business with our clients so we played it it was new evidence it wasn't new evidence it was not a new claim it was evidence of the claim your honor so just sudden


precedent in orton versus johnny's lunch as focusing the inquiry as to whether or not someone is salary soley on the amount of pay that a person receives to it disregarded the substantial evidence


she's the one asking all the questions when that well but that isn't so very isn't that you have a hearing with an active participant the theory is that you've already decided it before you go in because you brought the charge did she bring the charge she's in charge of bringing the charge yes


issue of defense counsel could have asked for a continuance if it doth that it needed more time to repair and i think the court's well aware of the circumstances at issue at that particular time but this is you could also have been avoided had the district court is given


in contempt if i suppose and i apologize i guess i misunderstood the hypothetical bit but i suppose where you're compelling some affirmative act like that is opposing the agreement set aside one


spent between two thousand and fourteen and today almost all of that fourteen million was spent exclusively on the managers they were insider transactions and they made no effort to comply with the final approval order thank you all right


not correct you just said something i was unaware of you're saying you have an insurance policy that my cover that there is two insurance policies one there's a small policy that was paying some of the fees in the case that they have declined to pay anything more there was a director and officers policy that


same issue with disparity i think the government takes a somewhat nuanced view here it's not that not enough for a judge to disagree i mean that's the same thing as touching on the what what did he say that was convincing so then judge


that mr bin background of the incarcerated a good b plus the sort of


it's it's interesting that the counsel in the previous argument brought up the issue of the court's recent decision monday's the supreme court's this monday decision in westby because i discovered that case in preparing for this argument as well


officer our jason white fell to the ground and immediately began getting back up still with the knife still train star still trained on officer mckee officer mckee within a second fired two


employed is the same the reason we have the russian reach the conclusion it did is the same it's because of the fast but second decision making that's going on in a deadly force situation to go back to explaining to judge strengths how it is that the


behind this fenced in enclosure and the position the court notes in footnote six that friends his position is unclear friends his position relative to jason white is critical to evaluate whether that is a reasonable shoot


think that's consistent so while the court did use some incorrect terms i think in the end what the court did by making that adverse credibility finding is fully consistent with a denying its obligations to decide motion for a new


what's her what's her theory as to why she produces this document i don't know why she produced i think it was to try to i think this was fabricated to try to show that she was doing legal work for


uniformity but the us deal we in creating it statute of limitations expressly delegated to each state the right to develop its own each state statute limitations


submit additional evidence yeah ok i think if you look to the administrative decision in the ministry of record i don't i don't believe that was part of their exhibits at the administrative hearing which it was part of their motion as to what they want to submit on appeal


pointed out just with regard to the judge calvary's a state court opinion that's really what you control here i mean whatever the party said verbal in court isn't binding on anyone there are methods elation certainly is but that's


so i'm still confused then about my hypothetical let's assume that the real estate was still being held in trust at the time of the terminations of the plan trust and


this rule gets at that problem better than it then it and the other would whose perspective well from the perspective of you certainly but also from congress is


it's designed for structural reorganizations such as mergers and therefore it's it does not have anything to do with success or liability interest so it because this was simply a sale of


except then he says that i'm going to depart i'm going to do a variance upward because i don't think the sentence of one hundred twenty months is enough and that means the judge isn't using so it's it i


kids and that seems like it's not doing this fairly i disagree with that your honor because i think it goes to the harm that it poses the public the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public


he had multiple border crossings but he had a specialized knowledge of trucking or an ability to cross the border he had knowledge of how trucks work and are put together within the context of the needs of a


end if the court looks at the transcripts and sees the reasoning of the court it does lead to the conclusion that he was using facts outside the record and his own opinion and his


four for class treatment when that same court has already determined that the l's same common issues do not predominate over individualized


lawyer in for class action they that they have their place they have the rule but the reason there's this rubric of theirs the reason that there are so many cases is because not every case turns out to be more efficient for the plaintiffs for the defendants and for the courts how


person can give information to the police officer but once he engages the police officer he's crossed that line in this case and he engaged in place officer by the lying to police officer stating that there was no


prepaid for why isn't that seems to me a misrepresentation to the police and yet we said no state actor in that case it was a mistake where the


wanted us to address the issue of jurisdiction so i thought i'd spend a minute talking about that now and the note from the clerk didn't indicate exactly what about jurisdiction but i'm assuming or it concerns about whether you hear


of the surgeons in this case plaintiff's experts as well as ours that all of the different approaches and there are some six or seven or eight different technical approaches to this can result in confidence and typically when the approach is used that we use


the bathroom on the other hand dr feely pointed out that the the hook colon is just a conduit it takes material from point a to point b so there is no warning


crimes that raises a natural propensity it's an effect it's a relative it's but the problem is that it's basically to relevance that we're worried that juries are going to work that way too much weight


questions of fact they state that there is but they've offered nothing no evidence no affidavits no pleadings nothing to raise the question back what we allays in our complaint and this is really what the court


him and that is one of the things that i am i was going to tell the court there are a few things that the objection the state and counsel here argues then it is the


that instruction when matched with a motivating factor language that was in fifteen and sixteen continue to take the case away from the requirement because of that the requirement that the jury find that the acts were taken because of her race or


four different avenues to be able to do that and the first one would be sick suspicious time and this is once again from the to ruby two thousand and thirteen seven circuit case which is actually applying the eleanor law the human rights act because this case originally


procedures the element and i cannot suggest and the law does not provide that it is necessary to state that it was because of the language actually from the only human rights access on the basis


believe it was four that went down to two or five of them down there to your honor and we're not talking about four thousand patients then would you know maybe allow you an argument that well you know how would he or why would he have done it just on exhibits thirteen or


than the fact that he does have all these prior problems of clearly to landing a good record so i agree i think whatever must have happened has run its course while it hasn't with the shoulder so why do you know and again fletcher


dr anderson stuff position testimony is sufficient enough in this matter for the to the supporters of the art of the commission's decision such that the petitioner has not met the manifest weight stated in an opposite conclusion is not


type that was actually used i'm not certain it's possible


to that and indicated to the trial court that the record on the downward deviation had been closed that in june of two thousand and twelve other parties had offered testimony had offered exhibits and then a decision was made by the


court acknowledge those things however despite that and despite the fact that the trial court recognized that its job was to follow the mandate of this court and determine a downward


trotting it was sprinting i think the defendant would recognize if the dog darted out in front of the car ok that's an overt action well a dog is kind of jogger across the road is that an overt action the dog was


dog's dead or alive and i i i don't want to i don't want to confuse that because i don't know the answer to whether the animal control it specifically applies to a dead dog but the point remains that even if the dog dead it's in a place it should not have then because it shouldn't


because suzy froze up so the jury's not going to hear anything at all about what the different detour as a matter of policy what policy would you what policy can you think of that would explain why the legislature wanted


policy in terms of the logic of restricting the application of one fifteen ten only those statements of the victim in the


seventy three and in addition as were promising that the jointer was proper at all that one fifteen ten testimony that was admitted was also properly admitted and there was no abuse of discretion


could have been corrected jerzy cannot be impeached and the reason we do that is because we separate the power of the juror is a trier back from the judge and so this is a situation that comes with a high risk


why as a matter of law this court should hold that it's her say reversible error when the trial judge allows her spouse to serve on the jury other situations would be the husband could look down favorably upon defense counsel when they're arguing


judge matsch heard was that she couldn't even identify you that was is that right well i mean that's correct he she have said all along i don't know what he looked like he was wearing a brown uniform you know this is the day her she's trying to


same time be so fun to flee prejudicial as to constitute a structural heir and as we are aware the erroneous admission of other crimes evidence may be deemed harmless so it is a logical for it to also be at the same time


this and i understand what you're saying there but i don't think that this the superiority of the injury it's based on the subjective determination of the person who asked to stop you have to stop if


we can't evaluate its effect upon the credibility of other witnesses until he's able to give that live testimony at a third stage hearing it was again and reasonable not to include that claim and ensure that the case proceed to that


concealed carry act are constitutional the fees are nominal it's only thirty dollars every year for a total of one fifty every five years and they're opposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing a regulated activity is in question and


factors at that point types and essentially stopped its analysis and i can only speculate as to that because i can't imagine any other way to get the distribution that i had especially when it could have awarded maintenance or some other support


beyond a reasonable doubt the articulated reason for the employer's terminations of mr tapley every single individual who testified testified that mr tapley had an event with the


came in there he was the only one when he went in that she was negative towards she didn't even know all the other employees who might have that meeting and so she was great really nice he went in there and she challenged him about something that i


tailpiece behavior toward two female employees if it doesn't have to do with gender why would they even point out that it was two female employees clearly we human


to affirm the findings of the relations commission thank you thank you mr morton thank you and may please the court now my name is greg moore doc and i represent the city of bloomington human relations


the future so there is no time period present value and if you paid a dollar for day the pun paid with your dollar the present value would be a dollar you paid or tomorrow it would be maybe ninety nine cents a gallon as of today


see no so thank you very much is there any rebuttal


on able to show that it was harmless it's those reasons we asked


that the next sentence that the state's attorney does tell the jury or comments to the jury is she does make a statement says no people do not leave the effect of binding the back yard of put put it into context isn't that


operating and that's where the majority of the damage when you have an issue about the value you see the rafts when when we're talking about preventing proper in term securitize did none of that whether it's intentionally


statute for easy reference for the trial court that is that is well within what is permissible and is actually desirable trial court level to do that where you are referring to a statute or ordinance or or some other action was mistreated code the court might not have


he could have easily i'm started saving time so that the arrears wouldn't seem so excessive and he could have set that money aside particularly since he didn't have


supreme court's analysis in gulf oil which sets out what to consider you don't just hold your finger in the air and decide what's convenient you don't just throw in the towel and say well there's thirty nine fenice no worst convenience you go through the gulf oil


i would implore you to transfer this case to where belongs not only for the private factors they consider before the public factors that are much more important have much more consideration here i will tell you a look at the larry case and


the units and also expenses that would have been related to the property itself up things like maintaining the grounds maintaining the buildings would have been considered but income


qualified to interview a child by sexual abuse that you see a vast is calling my client on that incident because the police are mandated reporters and the child was interviewed by the


demonstrate and to trace that and to show something other than what she provided and in that case the court indicated with several bank accounts


while i believe that it's bad faith and that while the parties came to agreement about the doing of my resume the repair done them correct on her well what is the evidence of misconduct


solution and by that a problem harden why is it a problem that's an easy solution the real point that is not the problem the real problem is that we also have to have a pilot plant


any examples we've never had examples in the years of litigation we've never had examples what did you do the look we made inquiries with us and could not find and including talking to


than one description of specific aspects of this have states argument in different parts of this decision and that's why i'm struggling a little bit not apologize the overarching discussion and the primary discussion of the board's decision that we believe is pertinent here is the


application so there's this is a case where there is more acquire more than substantial evidence in support of the findings that were made by the board in support of obviousness that it would be obvious to combine these compounds as the era qana reference


actual time tested standard of likelihood of success on the merits likelihood of success that they will be able to prove a trial that your products are infringing their patent likelihood of success on the


tennis to that there wasn't tennis one with respect to either obviousness or frankly infringement telegrams imposed a plain era the requirement on common face and in our view when we talk about face we're talking about my face or the face of a mountain or the


just want to make sure i've addressed everything i guess i would again emphasize that he's the petitioners indicating that there's this dual function of the fan in mukherjea and the


eight and twenty b of the eight zero patent and post twenty four of suit or function to couple the staff and then they go on and the only analysis that they provide is a comparison between the movable arms twenty and


post and flips stand into the water the step clips as out but what stops it is not the post that it's attached to it's another post which unfortunately it's also referred to as opposed but


how how you know how can you what sources do you have i mean in calgary you had that the party that was harmed was in california you had that there were contacts with curtis in california there were a lot more


public because none of them are still in the are there are extraordinarily skilled yard so you don't have a person born or still there are those doctor like you define so if it was twenty ordinary ordinary spinal surgeons that would be ok


was a reasonably measured response to the charge the problem is what we don't have a new record is he had these three s and p violations in march and so we said then didn't because of them what you really have is he had some s and p violations of marge then you have this mid year review


on a motion to dismiss to cleanly or really the burden is when when a parting fails to disclose facts isn't there a presumption that those facts would be adverse to him isn't that the way the law works


the board has already found that looking at the references that were put forward in this particular petition those references don't work together and they don't formally or with cases from our court like ohio will


an unpredictable art and then went on to try to explain why it's unpredictable the board was well within its rights looking at the record here and looking at the prior references that were put together to find that in this instance


that is what the inventor is making clear here and the fact that you separate and destroy the integrity of the spongy layer means that it is in fact the remnants of this destruction it is debris and what


very briefly i'd like to address very specific three points about the characterization of the experts at record first of all my colleague said that dr bergen testified in his decorate her declaration


computer even if optimized by controllers opt out was launched one on sixty would lose in the end control other words he's saying it shows that the house provides the setpoints but it doesn't say explicitly that there's a


hayward takes issue with the board's decision ignoring the fact that the board was merely responding to how these issues came to it and you talk about figure nine and seventeen earlier in this confusion over whether they need to be together or not and he were to saying the


back reject our parts and say well you're going to have to strip us more well there was a problem with the parts that they received or at least they reported parts that they received that were so defective that you wouldn't want to


it would only be because it didn't get to produce the remainder of the parts that were actually behind schedule and they were doing previously that never shipped and that was actually paid for these defective parts of the government had to eventually scrap and couldn't even use


that is or a process for challenging that reduction it within the agency or or is that just no longer an issue that everybody agrees whatever number you have and out west which is lower than one hundred sixty s


will absolutely have the opportunity to raise all of the objections that he had to both the o e d investigation as well as to the underlying disciplinary proceedings that are still ongoing in district court through a section thirty two complaint


that action of perpetuating the arrest where as with the grand jury one individual the prosecutor is coming in to to state i believe i have probable cause and then that the grand jury is


soli as a result of this indictment mr henderson's due process arguments appear to rest on the fact that he was entitled to prove his innocence before he was suspended but that the agency is simply not equipped or authorized


may be you may be in a police department where you have a structure of hierarchy that reviews that process if all you hear from is the arresting officer and the complainant it's not good enough and all i'm saying is that in this case that can't be due


on too much of the burden so when the court interpreted the reallocating step as reallocating the portions of the content to be stored by each peers cash storage he was accounting for this very of


everything was identical a decided it's saying if it's the same transaction the same common nucleus of operative fact but that's the whole point you're assuming the conclusion isn't the same you know transaction


wasn't done for for a long time and that appears to have been copied there by one company but but isn't it in that in the george martin case which trial court


success tends to indicate that the zip lock feature is important and distinct from roland full substantially different but the other thing i'd like to point out with respect to this


pins but that distinction between four bit transfer and serial parallel has no bearing on infringement here because it's all data it's the same kind of data it's going on the same lines whether it's an s d room as you car and cans controller has no say


sole evidence they relied on at the board was their review their experts review of the of the drawing to find it based on a specification that it would slip out and fall out once it was taken off


invention which is case in which case law this court set is the invention here is form a it's not doing a polymorph screen it is it is is having crystalline form a which is a specialized crystal and in this instance it does have


of encouragement but the court but the district court cannot use that finding to negate the induced infringement as per astra zeneca this court said that as long as some users will be instructed to use this


there's sufficient evidence to support them as facts and then finally on the specs is is is fair use able to be determined based on those facts and so what i'm


doesn't get to say i plagiarized your work because you were going to make a lousy film or i did a better sequel of the new fourth fact samsung cited in trying to extract a thirty nine million dollar discount


terminate contracts or accept the repudiating of a contract said i don't want to let this out again i'm going to hold you to this and in fact if you don't do the work i'm going to put you in default so we


start with our expert that i think the best pages are fifteen five seventy four to fifteen five seventy seven of the record and there is our expert talking about why it would make sense to take


to have a trial of discovery as is the way that this event occurred but really what we're talking about here this case is a competitor selling these seals and usually in these types of cases you would find all kinds of washers materials instructions


whether or not it was this is really again a notice argument and whether or not mr irwin was on notice of his misconduct is really irrelevant to whether or not the agency proved that such misconduct was the reason for his removal


other claims that would be would remain invalidated by these are so there really with respect to this direct issue i judge you mean that really two different sets of alternative arguments the first is that and felt self discloses direct communication for the reason


and reasonable litigation conduct at this point about are three does not appear in the first that is it's not one of your two two points about why their position was objective lee meritless it's only one


simple navigational command on direct appeal is the back to me and which was not new the reference on which we were lying goes back to nine hundred eighty three and described not only a back command but a back command that went back to the beginning of either the previous file or the current file depending


was always testifying from the point of view of what a poster would think so i find if if i'm using he thinks i meant by he thinks to put a post with thing i don't know that he was involved in he certainly wasn't involved in writing any of the sanity documents not dr if he had no involvement with


is something that you can shrug off no matter what else no matter what rationale one looks for in their relationships and their concerns to tell us in the brief since he's complained about


process focus so much on the importance of why the inventors who had solved the problem in terms of the pitch angle for the printing machine why that invention was not an obvious it's and it goes back to


down to is your theory that the invention story counts every single time and need to be taken into account every single time even if there is a completely separate theory for motivational


independent and separate from the motive the inventor had behind his invention story which were based on some recognized problem that words unappreciated


it is directed to transferring data from the internet incapable data capture device to an internet capable mobile device over a previously established pair of short range wireless connection through request response


allegations from which one could plausibly infer that those steps were invented if that's what the court said here it's a different i mean this part i think i do remember it wasn't


of this was the structure of the real in the fact that you had these defined sections where every game you get a new real you get a new set of symbols and what that led to was trying to


is that the real it's not like a mechanical device it isn't the reals can just be the result of one generation that's right and in effect they may well they


human body and so we've got a conflict here in testimony which is oddly reversed because of the change in the position of parties what are we supposed to do about so i think the answer judge dicus send it


abstract ideas so therefore that's not an inventive concept as even if we accept for purposes of this appeal that there is something unconventional about your data analysis


and that it's tied to the mc you know correct and the statute of limitations which is the normal court context or the accrual date which is the issue for purposes of this court is an intensely factual basis that hands


case sort of stands or falls on the eye from your standpoint stands or falls on the strength of the i free to get liberation yes if you didn't have that you would be in front of us right i think the answer to that


is the most intriguing part of the trigger in in the two three three patent and it's demonstrated in figure sixteen seventeen and eighteen has


or ok well under the hypothetical then i still think you meet the limitations for all the claims except for potentially one and that's number twenty three which


is simply nothing in the record to show that the pinger process is something that was well understood or routine or conventional at the time of this invention and remember this invention was conceived in one thousand nine hundred ninety seven at the very


on the election doctrine there are two parts to the election doctrine the court made were federal claims made to findings related to that so one was related to the


a wider network of data control unit those aren't those are very specific concrete tangible components and they're saying look we do things in a little different way these are arguments about means not about you know there's not


one in three of the patent that's how the electricity would flow from the electric vehicle back to the grid which is what the name is state to grit and it


or would be some obligation to do that and there isn't like last response was i did talk to him they were friends he started crying he admitted that he had a problem but then he ended the conversation the


the flow control channel is disposed inside the sample fluid container with the liquid pervious i oriented toward toward was a typo let's add it the base of the sample fluid container so that the


and here if in fact the there was plenty of the product of the argentine to constitute infringing amounts then there would have been no injury well i think another


argument for eleven twenty seven to apply to eleven fifteen eleven twenty five and i suspect that because initially the magistrate judge and the district court judge agreed with our position that they're going to say that well maybe now we


know the ninth circuit disagrees or maybe based on good argument we disagree with that but i really don't think that there is going to be a finding that our arguments were outside of the ordinary when there is this wind which in the ninth circuit and so i don't think it's a


acceptable all i would close with thank you for the extra time your honor is that the course of conduct was they did not respond to summary judgment on copyright they did not object on patent they did not appeal patent they changed their trademark only at


if you were correct on that where does that lead us what is your view that he was required to adopt the p tabs p r i construction as you understand that


training that's are generated and again they are just simply passed through transmitted through the accused products yes twenty extraneous bits are put on but they were taken off i think he was brought up in the same eight it's an alternate neither value or


according to your theory as i understand it would not you are because it's not first of all it's not a mobile phone you know that if i put it ok i put the clicker on to my mobile phone so if you send a message saying start the start this test is just a click it's just a click on the


what left the document itself somewhat unclear right i believe that i believe that if that's what that there was the testimony of the two experts that that is what would occur in that situation where isn't expressly discussed in any


well i think that we were considering the public notice function we have to consider who is being noticed you know so here this is a drug patent supposed to provide notice to competitors and we have to kind of consider here that


answer it and the director can choose not to answer it at all and if if he does decide that he wants to answer then you know the reason that there is a proceeding involving the tribes patent is not that they've been held in the court by


i want you to ask mr george for all records you might have i want this rector's active medical exam to take place all of that came in anything that was available came in and there was an evaluation you don't want to call that a


have an investigation of a no i'm saying is that would be it it's a it is a criminal act if there is some conspiracy of all that eighty states to not show up to work i want to be would you judge shannon i'm not saying that they're not allowed to delay the investigation what i am saying is


are combinable the only argument that appellate have made is that there is one potential possible situation in which you might end up with competing frequencies but as the board specifically held that's


the tension isn't necessarily that the board could not have done that into the record for additional justification it was that they didn't have an opportunity to respond to a jury budge


good morning your honors there please the court the claims court in this case held that the plaintiffs were in title two no pay for two types of activities that they did during the training program st the plaintiffs created detailed


that that's not the analysis that the court is supposed to apply under the regulation the analysis says if you do productive work during a training program so it's not if it's either a learning or it's work that's not what the regulations sent and that this is illustrated


contaminated because this judge moore i think alluded to earlier this claim isn't about the government's liability for contamination of property that's that's correct so that you just mentioned the bar let letter put on is a basis


also include a different a different numbering schemes or color coding or or other other type things so but but i think the use of the term including here is exactly like the use of the term comprising that appears in


did not claim specifically a mental health condition in a claim seeking a prostate condition yet the court held that the b b s most of sympathetically construe those pleadings limiting this to intent is going to specific intends to claim a


well not there well that's why i want to go to the facts because i think that before i can have a coherent discussion with you i can do this very quickly you know i i'm not going to overstate the record i don't have citations when you say what matters is what it works but you have to


which is a bad kind of claim and a claim that says here is something about how i get that power why is this the right side of that


lesser degree of showing of the marks and so when you're looking at the whole likelihood of confusion question it it did these things get weighed and evaluated in that context i think it is possible but i don't know if that would change the the outcome the other thing i would add and preparing for are


at the time of the designation and the designation is the monument designation that's the relevant designation for determining whether or not there's a valid existing right sorry i just want to answer just uses question is that the so same rules for how to


attached to the application they eventually became part of the application for benefits by the usual process of the v a getting the service records is that what happened not quite your honor so


means i mean it's much of a leap and it's it's you can't win on that argument or substantial evidence reveal while it again then the issue is where is the evidence that that that reference to subchannels or pants is the same thing as as the claim you know where is the


argument because it can be used in different contexts it did not a lot my understanding is that did not allow them to make arguments but it did allow them to list what they thought was improper or outside the


this where you're seeing you know continual conflicts it's just it's not a case where payment would make sense immediate payment ok


my argument on the merits the bull run timber sale does not authorize the commercial harvest of all the dead and dying trees along the seventeen nine miles of road instead it only authorizes those dead trees that pose a hazard to the roadway and a


referred to organizations as individuals in common parlance and yet when it comes to animals we do even the district court said that one might refer to their dog as quite and in an individual and so given that the rule where a statute lacks


shot and wounded wolf radio sanchez the prosecutor statements though perhaps objectionable do not overrule the instructions of the court the court's instructions are the


submitted and this panel is adjourned thank you


why he believes that this was a pretext if it he's again to suspect yes that he was denied his position because of discriminatory reasons but do you think that's a thick enough if you began to suspect i've


clearly established that you can't point a gun at someone suspected of a violent crime near her children in this case mr smith had been in the car with his girlfriend and small child which officer may or knew because detective harrison had


damages are inadequate and therefore have your nd will jurisdiction but if you have a debt collection action just plain debt collection and the party said you know we hereby convert equitable jurisdiction of the court to do an equitable accounting


briefing by both parties of course is the issue of priority and there seemed to be some implication in some of your briefing where you seem to indicate that your client had used this great mark before


responsible for setting schedules and things of that nature what leads you what in your complaint or what you said you were led to believe that adams had the records that belong to


access to the records so a person who is not rehired or whose employment is terminated does not have access to the defendant's employment records how can such a person allege with both the city their cheers he or she


use of deadly force taken place had not advanced or made any movements to threaten the officers and so in this case at bar where we had the driver of the honda the driver of the honda had not vocalize


stuff and so nowadays they really don't have to advertise it that way as expects pleasantly do i think we have some example you're describing right now isn't part of your complaint it is actually is pled to as there are some old advertisements in


was really was in the back seat of his own car along for the ride for much of this and i understand you know he is helping her get out of the trunk and i understand he started this whole thing but a lot of it he's president and the state court is basing this major purchase on him being


circumstances i don't think the landsea has to say much for this to be an implicit threat given everything else that's happening but as your honor pointed out a lot of what the state points to is just not saying anything


the question that's been raised here is with both respect to kendall and with respect to twamley is that the only allegations are of parallel behavior then you need more but i'm


have here i mean you have direct evidence that i mean this seems in the same vein of direct evidence that you're using except this came from the c e o of the company and you have evidence or a leg ations publicly made


honors your just quickly on that similarity point for her back into something else what we note in our brief and what the court needs to focus on is in addition to dealing with the similarities and differences just in general the overall appearance of the marks you have to consider


to demonstrate which is causation now these oh da status designations they're very common in the aviation world and they allow a h i v ability to self


all guys or power submitted no evidence or testimony giving any context to these four easements and the district court correctly looked at us and said evidence of unilateral conduct isn't very good evidence of course in dealing obviously because there's no


and the admission of testimony by other people who presumably would have testified they had a different understanding of what that language map would not have had any impact i don't think it was your


deduction payment made by antioch so i came right off the top so they were credit wasn't double charging as was alleged by a palance now they was there any adverse effect to the


kick the ball between the uprights you know that's good advice but i don't think i added anything that he didn't already know so i couldn't claim any credit if he actually does kick the ball between the uprights which is not a


foregone conclusion with barry's field goal kicker is at soldier field but if he actually managed to do it i can't say and i am i'm a participant in that successful action and it's you know


error for her to follow the client's directive here they repeatedly stated that that was her mistake was not to talk to a supervisor so this argument that it was appropriate and excuses you know precludes summary judgment for them to rely on the


from from whether the you know they're separate entity for general lawsuit purposes under state law i think the cases that you see where it's allowed is when there's not an actual public entity named in the case you only have


them th amendment rights don't just belong to the state the supreme court has been very clear about that in bond versus united states and when you look at the madeira


the individual class members that's all of them all of the individual yes and we say that that includes up to the state's portion because there's no other way for the state to get to to obtain their


be and in fact they are met doesn't and then the next sentence is the issue here though is whether they must and the court reserved to the question of whether they whether if you bring a


may is describing the type of cases where it was necessary secondly the this court can decide based on the mountain controversy it could indicate that there are serious questions raised


controversy what's in controversy isn't just what occurred until the data removal what's a controversy is the entire scope of the case are you saying you are lying then the actual people that are involved are going to continue to suffer this


got and that contained potentially exculpatory evidence which the nevada supreme court in reading the videos of including can see the videos because that was on her phone as well so all of that evidence which was in metro's hands for a moment looked at who knows what they looked at they


gave it back they didn't keep it that it they retrieve nothing from that so all that relevant probative evidence about you know is there even sufficient probable cause here to even charge dr scafidi with a really heinous act you know the oh this is very interesting


except for this type of private carriage and in sixty nine hundred sees both the private hands exception and the special messenger exception and i think if you were to look at arizona v united states i think it's a more powerful


a preemption applies only when there's been a physical interference with the postal service is ability to do its work that obviously does not exist here my opponent has not even tried to distinguish those cases because he cannot do so with that i think the court for it's time


found that the error and prejudice were obvious and meritorious because the double jeopardy claim was not raised at the proper time and that's what we have here counsel was correct in making the double jeopardy argument but he made it prematurely and would you agree that


afterthought and if you're looking found it the city did not interfere with his ability to take him out lightly no your honor actually the jury in correctly found that they did interfere with his ability to take off and i thought they sounded good but i thought they found that they didn't


authority to fashion a remedy and the reson exactly taken it out of the it was not for feeling all the conditions that went with taking the well i won't quibble about that but it was neither here nor there in


is doing is telling you these are our best efforts and this is aspirational and therefore you can't sue us if we don't do this we're trying to we're doing our best here i agree with you and then they go on that they say these are not enforceable contractual agreements i agree with them thirty eight dollars


documents at this point on the motion to dismiss stage i think reading the section interesting in light of the common understanding of what checking means there is a moment at which a bag is checked and that's the moment which the passenger arrives at the skycaps can stand in


if they said look the sacramento flight is delayed by two hours for any of you passengers who live someplace halfway between sacramento and san francisco we do have a san francisco flight that has availability we're willing to put you on that flight and he and he goes over and


is no concern as there is here that too much was being taken from the class and light of the actual labor of council money lastly address the fore the fact that the four points of the multiplier shouldn't


that one on that basis but there was no difference because class council had no chance of winning their appeal this court i think lam's plus shows that there was no opening any more for arguing that the f a a is not


the court should look at it kind of cumulatively in that way in that way does that help your honor with that topic but yes i want to hear from from you know regarding the relevancy of that ok i see my time is expired if the court has other questions i'm happy to answer them let me just ask judge


done in the in the district court either by way of a motion for reconsideration or that aspect of the ruling or you know it's possible


principles of equal protection for that vote if mr olson congress passed a law that said if there were a lot of challenges to the statutory interpretation under a particular statute say the health care act and it said


reasonable step reasonable suspicion rule in established in terry versus ohio which courts and law enforcement officials have been applying now for more than forty years should be altered so that now it applies as a sliding scale where the


level of suspicion varies depending on the nature of the crime and an anonymous tipster claims someone has committed the registry it so if the tip is this cars driving by and and you know throwing bombs out the window


element of criminal behavior unless the person is actually driving erratically if the person is driving a radically when the officers appear and there's no fourth amendment issue and it's clear that they have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to pull over the vehicle you


that wasn't accepted by the party and thereby overall cook cases what they found was that an offer was made and the other side by taking money accepted the offer but now you found any case in the common law that


said he doesn't want to accept this offer because he doesn't think it gives him everything it's entitled he's entitled to and the measure of complete relief has to be at this stage about what his complaint asks for it's just like the voluntary sation


again not an article three question but a week twenty three question i think that could be considered by the court in exercising its discretion of the rule twenty three can i want to know what the position is i think if the i think that's hard and let me tell you why


by either walters or smith and that's important because they signed the same contract now what we do have as facts that was glossed over by the appellate is the


has a ninety five percent probability that his score will be between seventy six so why is ninety five percent where does that come from that under evidence why why are you picking ninety five percent why isn't it in ninety percent


them might use it for a wide variety of purposes the question is why it is their determination that it's useful for a wide variety of purposes to have a ninety five percent confidence level why is the state stuck with that for this purpose


component of this for some time i can we don't dispute that we do know that the emphasis on i q is is decreasing and that their medical community is now suggesting that you should rely less and less on i q and they've changed not arguing for that they're just arguing


actually get fined in jail time so i believe the first man would also apply speech related in answer to your hypothetical i think there are many ways for the locality to regulate those signs for example if it doesn't want many signs it can say one person can put up


they may be mentioned late and see once today or largemouth neither mentioned latency that's that's what congress was concerned about it's all over the study group report it's in the house conference report more times than the name product here latency and long latency illness


but whether that's the case or not this case in point is claim fails basically at every level first there is no duty here and the plaintiff has referenced these


admitted there's a path they haven't admitted there is a parkway you can't take a word and then put something else and parentheses and claim that they've admitted to it so plaintiff is not reference in fact plaintiff even says the judge smith


everywhere what they are as it's well d established in the record that the district runs heavy track machinery and tractors in that area granite city simply put a curb cuts so that their sidewalks


could attach to a lake the reason the supreme court did not base its decision upon broke it is that that argument or that position had not been advanced by the parts so therefore did not address


on as the children grew up and went through life in the future they would know that while their father was flawed and have these problems that he struggled nonetheless he continued


monthly they did not dispute it but as support to use it well here's my question about your valuation because it seems that the court concerns your expert


and the other issues that would have the and we felt subsumed within the definition that she had given and so that's why i asked her about it because she defied it that way


reefer she said that if you if you have any question about it but the bottom line is the reason the numbers are not different is that the report is the same in terms of final numbers not because it's not account and not an exact valuation gave because


officers at the hearing largely focused on that aspect of the error from the state's perspective that we rely upon an appeal is that the court simply didn't consider any of that evidence


he explained that looking at the totality of circumstances this was not a close call this is not come down to a single staff including the fact that mr griffin


are a couple of additional factors that we'd like the court to consider there's an eye spendthrift clause in the straw says the court may be aware it's our position that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment over our client's objection without permitting him to do discovery


is your honor go ahead mina plays the cord to the the this is the case for malicious prosecution and abuse of process arising out of a previous criminal action against


and a south dakota supreme court case which we've cited abuse of process as an el al terrier purposed for bringing the criminal action and the use of process not


and in this case there was no memo on there was any and there wasn't any two acts of stocking which is an element of this particular offense of no contact no stocking and there were


defendants fees so your honor in a nutshell this this property is always meant to tracks this when there was never any doubt whatsoever but what the underlying result was going to be and we had to try it case


potentially st made aware of the report after he had been filed with the court correct it would have been it was filed with the court before he entered appearance so at least with in regard to mr foreman he had no opportunity to


mistakenly sued the wrong parties and the quote so i don't think there's any doubt based on just as well as opinion in the st district opinion that when you sue the wrong person it doesn't mean you have sued them it just means you need to correct your error and you've made an error


you've got your high and give them the benefit of the doubt at ten dollars an hour he's got what he earns and he also works and it's important a court recognizes this when counsel is talking about the the the variable nature of


weeks later on october st two thousand and ninety two there was a big gap in time i would had originally went back and forth with his counsel trying to schedule this hearing from the trial court but it didn't happen the court couldn't fit in its


in its schedule we got in october and earlier date in october st however his counsel had an objection they had a conflict so we couldn't do it before october st and this is twenty one dollars days before trial set did you go ahead and did you go


conservative care marker by june one of two thousand and sixteen and was still doing the same thing with no noted improvement just munching on narcotics for one year and nine months even ten days before he went to us and telling his coworker


no significant difference and he said this guy failed conservative care which dr kitchen's a doctor going at agrees with because it was more than six months and after feeling conservative care that he's a surgical candidate which doctors


became a candidate for surgery and the doctor couldn't say after the accident no that's not true when you say that he likes what he does he said that he became a surgical candidate d and i don't know the exact


resign may only be reinstated with the approval of the sheriff and the marriage commission that's a discretionary act and that in that case the individual seeking reinstatement


his he voluntarily reduced his income by almost seventy percent to about forty four one hundred dollars per month


there's nothing that we're arguing that you know other than inadvertent and lack of understanding as to how the summons were issued in the circuit clerk of madison county at that time


company in this case benchmark what happens as benchmark the title company reviews the request compares the request against the budgets in the case investigates at the site at the construction site what was


looking at the absolutely undisputed value of the marital state judge thurston decided that a maximum at a maximum kim got seventeen percent of the


substantively unconscionable and all you have to do to confirm that is look at the facts of the argument case look at the facts of the callahan case look at the facts of the johnson case and what is significant in


once again that would be a fact question and there's nothing in the record to support the conclusion or finding that he was aware of this non this non owner indorsement


and so the plaintiff's position is yes notice notice would be an issue for see ability would be an issue the court should go through a duty analysis but when the issue of notice came up the judge said you're right they've got notice


that the trial judge incorrectly applied but law on page page eight lower court said it's a requirement to predict when is next with respect to open an


has to be blatant inconsistency with the defense trial testimony for there to be some kind of opening of the door for this kind of use


siler the blade inconsistency from our perspective is that he says he is trying to find philip but then and he says even he has told several people some version of his story so all after his arrest but then he doesn't


tell me that yes the guideline range advocated by the pre sentence report was two hundred sixty two to three hundred twenty seven months now the district that included a two level up or departure that the government recommended based on mr food most perjury at trial


extended briefing both in the objections to the p s r and the sentencing memorandum of the order dressing that if the judge ruled and said on the record and in a statement of reasons i am adopting the defense position


not and so we don't just because there are some circumstances in which it might be rational to drop assumption but those circumstances as courts have said for decades are only circumstances in which the employer changes the status


be a six year process the common pleas order i was ineffective for a number of reasons the first is so the last round of this case the main question was the government


to the pennsylvania air pollution control and or stand that but if the air pollution control act then covered in the clean air act didn't cover can a regulation properly be enacted to go beyond the enabling statute unless it's inconsistent with the


been addressing it in the position to his motion and supporting a memorandum however it was stricken from the record which brings us to the point it was stricken from the record by someone other than in


that's enough for us to say looks like more than a small well for a person no i don't believe so your honor for a couple reasons number one is that mr khalil was in fact arrested with two other people charged with the same amount this amount was found in a house with three


asking for i can't manage that i'm just asking if you're making i'm not making that concession it was my understanding when i briefed the case and my review of the law that this would that this was sufficient i can't make that concession on behalf of the attorney general


but within that universe you have a group of priests or in a sex offenders who otherwise meet those requirements and the disc isn't decision has to be made whether you count all of them or some of them or


trying to coordinate both the redevelopment and the remediation in a way that not only protects the public health but also provides for economic development is the brownfields problem a program being done in coordination with the


not yet that's not my piece of the puzzle your honor but it's clear what's going on here is that the new jersey d e p t include a nation with the e p a has a strategic plan


the summer i guess a seven the school district said a number you know would like to you know meet with you would like to discuss this further and all they got back was two there were many look communications was one


rejecting the lease under three sixty five of the bakers your junctions not terminations well your honor there are some cases that say that it is a term nation and some cases that say that it is not there and the cases that conclude and collier


you might not have an ascertainable loss because the fee was something they're entitled to charge but nonetheless you've been told something false that inhibited the kind of rights thank you but if your ability to assert your rights in a way that the new


that's an issue that you the district court having accepted jurisdiction cannot back away from you have to deal with it sorry that's correct your honor but shouldn't have been having vacated the order that because the marshals in


can't do anything to set aside a say ordered by a federal court and all that you can really do is attempt to quiet title that is correct you're on board at that's that and that puts everybody between a rock


mr dobbs for that that the work that was going on by the more goals from went on for a substantial period of time and you knew it as they put it you sat by and watched them go through a


because i want to i just want to emphasize that i believe that we have a right to intervene with respect to the merits of this decision but with respect to the remedy in particular i think that what we need to ensure is that the rights of everyone in the i


absolutely at this point the issue is not whether this would be admissible to prove negligence in the sense of a subsequent medial measure the issue instead is given that there are questions of


twenty thousand dollar undocumented loan which was found to be conversion of the state funds but then the media which people mr bassil know was required because of the danger to the assets of the state in part because of this


and then came along and they are given the alternative even if it's not extraordinary circumstances mr griffin ratified solomon's actions you know


that these were employees who somehow had been hoodwinked that by signing a release when they were actually opposed to the union would somehow be shaped into the supporting you need real people who were attesting to their support from the union and in the door in case


where pretrial this is not a simple collection case mr roach it does and continues to do everything possible to avoid this judgement there is a current action pending we cited in our piece of our papers to inforce to judgment man with all


below i asked how to not be allowed to come into evidence the judge said i've ruled that it can it's up to mr maduna mr maduna i asked him if he would and fairly he said he would that is the only reason i asked the question because i knew it was coming in


and interviewed everybody dr how dr be shy dr hill looked at all the research material and they found no basis to find scientific misconduct i'm happy with that result she went to or i invest and


of mcmahon magen corporation that shows dylan or worked seven to three thirty for that week of employment at the testimony for from the homicide trial where mr parr him was found guilty of third degree


l the next case post the st paul travelers insurance co numbers ten days thirty eight eighty eight and thirty three hundred this is one where we switched counsel and have mr


respect to malpractise liability and there's no dispute with respect to that and whether the weather travel to travelers was put on notice that earlier on the telephone conversation which your honor mentioned or the one of the


wise decision ok look you can be involved in this but you got a phony answer like you're a party and they file an answer and they put at the end they said we want sanctions and then they put the boilerplate that you and i in private when i was in private practice put in


will as a matter of their own business prudence decide well maybe we will get involved in one of these collateral proceedings even though it's not technically within our duty to defend but it could affect us we might have to pay out a large judgment


only the only the world renowned expert in voter suppression dr chandler davidson called by the d n c as its first expert witness testify that he was not aware of any are in c involvement in


the timing issue being the ten days correct but if it were for attorneys would that make a difference it would it would it would reduce the concern about it would reduce the concern about delivering the political


is view of such things i think your honor is correct but now we have an endpoint and there's nothing in his opinion that forecloses an application quite frankly tomorrow if there are changed circumstances and i don't believe they are foreclosed


extended for an eight year term the purton that it and we believe that's not appropriate but the pertinent touchstone baseline for extension at the very latest would be the two thousand form a loan decision so eight plus


that's what the law says in california that's correct or jam so i mean that it i mean that's the biggest issue he has it seems like the example if congress didn't vote in california we wouldn't be


state and do the people who are the citizens of the state do they know about the particular candidate it's pretty hard to say in this case they don't know about the candidate and the question becomes does this particular


have one more on my nickel i'm trying to find out whether well my understanding of the facts is at least but neither side seems to disagree with this but


commission stand or would you lose and that is well i think there's a there's certainly a way into the evidence that the that the i r s check stands and on a different footing only because it's the last in time


they who were not involved in the search removal decision anyway as far as we can tell certainly could not have been motivated by a retaliatory an effort to retaliate for the filing of the lawsuit a little while earlier thank


to put the onus on the manufacturer to test in every combination and that's what the differ court found and that was the basis for the ruling on the products liability side ok so so that's i thought that's what you were going to say before your best argument is


replacing the plated so but moving to facility in the sense that you no longer have the pipe running through property owner x s land you're going to proper you are wisely well under this under miscellaneous derangement we're limited to the same property it


blanket also for represented arguments will take the matter under advisement will take a five minute


it denied any request to force counsel to withdraw the finley letter and fallen on the petition it denied any request to construe this letter as a motion to amend and it was within its discretion to do so it doesn't have to give a


beside the point who stole it or if it was even stolen at all all that matters is that the perception was the cartel belief or who was involved in placing this individual nitro though he was no the


state of helping the government it could still be suppressed and here's what judge watson ruled twice comma opened that package to help the f b i that was imposed the first order and the second


clearly is then you've got to reverse because the judge relied on clearly erroneous finding now it's inconsistent with pants report no one testified to this at the hearing and the words he does this by sort of


two thousand and eight so it's just not plausible that the defendant didn't become involved until two thousand and nine now i'm sorry him go i was going to ask you what your position was on my question regarding the amount then if we accepted the defendant's


its cards to to through the defense paragraph one of course which is where i was just referring to that refers to early jackson and there's a there's an assumption that mr jose was and how to rely on that he was going to get early chance but there's others too if you have


argument here is the defendant didn't care what he did to them you know what makes it even worse these are his family and then there's a paragraph about that which doesn't distinguish this person from some other culprit who would have no relationship with them this is painting this defendant


investigation report which goes to the district court so that it's in response to all these things out there plus that the plea agreement provided for the government to allow for the government to provide additional information when the


to point out these aggravating facts and circumstances in response here to this defendant's letter primarily where he minimized claims that he was essentially


thought that certainly by the time of the two thousand and nine plan your client was not supposed to be digging in the pot you're saying that's wrong let me let me make it clear i'm using


any other actions consistent with an agreement to stop betting and just to give this in context this is one of the circumstances where mr guillory and mr bishop had agreed to bed rig through an intermediary might galloway at the public auction and


even know how a district judge imposing supervised release would use that statute that have to call the b o p and say what kind of credit would you give how how would you even do it well what would happen is she did it in this case correctly


what what do you want us to do on this he's already served his time and even if you're right unfortunately he's served his time what what what can we do is not sort of mooted out that well it's the reason i and i appreciate that the court


initiative and not at the command of the officers ran away from them and went into his home he found that the officer had a genuine belief that mr carter had made the gun threat he found that that fear of


judge so since no one seems to know exactly what the statement is and were all surmising based on our own trial experience you know how this would come about did the district court ever


regs underscore the reason the important reason for the confidentiality and my best take on your argument is that while even if it's in just this circumstance but it sounds like it could be used based on your


i think it is something that was raised earlier which is that plea agreements and cooperation agreements are interpreted like contracts but they're not purely contracts like private party contracts where you only have two parties that are interested the court here had an


and reverses on count one then you don't have that conviction you have to retry on that right and then if we agree with your concession on count two that there's insufficient evidence you can't retry that so you would have to


cocaine and other drugs that were found in the p s r and adopted in the factual basis to the plea agreement i don't want to belabor the authority of the court is obviously very engaged on the major issues in mercado marino and how they apply here i think the only distinction to add that was alluded to in


process i would like to address the notification of risks condition of the court which would like me to or if you have further questions on that internet ban ok i'll move on to the notification of risks


don't just like to note that the cost was pretty packing him in the first amendment wasn't raised this issue was not addressed and would cost riordan was i believe two thousand and three that was far before the internet was considered essential or considered to be


repeatedly in continuously which the phone records alone establish and establish for the jury but the intent to harass can be shown from just those phone records alone but in addition the government to make the case clear showed what he said


conviction the nd at the back and then the issues i'm going to start with is the district court's failure to calculate the what the guidelines called the total punishment applicable to both cases which resulted essentially


the roommate that is when they put both of them into handcuffs and searched the entire apartment for officer safety that search took place took approximately three to four minutes my client was in the kitchen at that time they didn't two of the it also was then took the roommate to the detention


the defendant was interviewed in the familiar surroundings of his living room as opposed to that and for a kid where he was taken back to us a storage shed and the world was closed yeah that's what's so odd about these cases it's


usually someone else has to be involved for that the caller said she heard that but that she did not hear anybody else and didn't know if anybody else was outside that could be death there but when officers arrived mr gans the only one that's outside there's


similarly situated defendants that that's something the court should have considered because the court did not consider that we suggest that that's fair and that every man is necessary on that issue as well i'm down to about three minutes and thirty seconds i'd like to reserve ok that's for


already found that that's in it in a political and it's also found specifically that when there the two forty three c and in this case d requires physical force sufficient to inflict the injury it


court presumes that it understands the law regarding its obligations that sentence seems and that based upon it even if it doesn't take it off specifically there it is not required for it to make a wrote a determination as to each fact or each factor


statements that mr chalabi i'm majoring has almost two hour interrogation with the f b i for mr chalabi these procedural safeguards under miranda were not effective to secure the privilege of self incrimination and as a result has a


seek minimum remain and can't we just fix it can't we just say he should have been convicted on four counts he should have only been convicted on one oh and i'm sorry ok yeah


there's no logical difference the dictionary definitions are the same the legislative history for this statute that we're talking about in this case emphasizes repeatedly were prohibiting any possession of child pornography so the meaning is the same the legislative history points in


they could ask for the id presumably they could have at that point the there had already been an extension of several minutes of the stop dedicated solely to


you would open up a major can of worms if you started getting facts specific because we know that justice thomas and others would interest stories and say and would like to do it anyway and


does it's really really really dangerous and often and usually does and sense that even if you're just trying to burn up one building you're going to come and kill somebody else well i again i just seems like a in it all


reason which is that in that instance the district court judge found only that the government had made a prime a facia showing of nondiscrimination that is not what is required of the third step of the bats and alice's


makes a decision whether he adopts the pre sentence investigation report without change or whether he adopts the pre sentence investigation report with the following changes did do you know what he says in the present investigation report


but but when he's actually on trial himself there's and that's i'm very nave it seems to mean that the motive to lie is pretty obvious i don't think so your honor in the


read i'm saying your honor respectfully if you were relying on a single sentence from the district court's order it's then a single sentence repeated over and over and over again from the defense attorneys all from both sides at the hearing and the


other two jurors and with what with respect to what is your head said if i could just find it where she said that


in this case because it the condition here applies directly to mental health mental health program and we do argue and i would does that necessarily is your point that any drug in a mental health program would


testified at trial that he was in the car he just claimed that he wasn't the one who shot him so that i think is something that needs to be clarified but in any case whether he has a need or not or as


has the requisite control and possession but since you've thought about this is just and i thought last time i'm going to ask is there anything in the statute that you can point us to to say hey hey judge gilman get that six circuit on line over there they don't know what they're


i don't think this requires any inconsistency with devon pak as i said devon pak addressed only the fact of an arrest not the justification for the arrests the whole line of cases that began with the rand that's the problem and so i just i mean


could be paid out of the retirement fund he has made payments your honor the government has garnished his his some of his wages some of his so it's not like the government has stepped in and paid the retirees and then he just pays the government not that i'm aware of you know he's made i think fifty six


to have a jury is deliberating it's not after the fact as it was not as this was during deliberation that they discovered this and so the district court in this case was really in gauging in a balancing act of trying to figure out


is video pen recorder which shows in approaching the bar yet that activated in court there's no texas policy against that that's correct ok that's lawful unless a local will prohibits a but there's no penal code violation the only other recording was the court


when you look at the when you look at the in recorder i mean what claims do you have that a bird derivative of your nine hundred eighty three false arrest if we found that there was probable cause for these disruption offenses what claims would you


been voluntariness is established through miranda and instead in brown the supreme court adopted the multi factor test that we now have looking at temporal proximity flagrant c of the unconstitutional conduct and intervening circumstances the f m think they


he brought in a swat team first he wanted to bring in d p s the swat team that he brought in corpus christi so he brought in that unit specialized in the execution of warrants so the level of experience in the positions of these officers show that they should have been aware of bailey


to the d p s station and there is a now there is a ninety nine page transcription of that interview however that of course wasn't the case during the suppression hearing and but


five seventy nine five eighty three and five eighty one in the fifty be motion we then press our core argument again three times above the line and several times in footnotes we've included in our brief the citations to our rule fifty be


marino's attorney in november two thousand and twelve to p r c saying you will either pay malin or you buy the rig from me clearly showing that mr marino knew that he still had title a month later on the record it seventeen o


with a phony excuse a lot of this criticism of her work is pretty subjective and of the words she made the constituents man well maybe the constituents were angry people to begin with you know i


which resulted from a use of force which was clearly excessive and the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable in this case the injury is clear the record record is rife with references in the complaint pled in this pain yet had teeth injuries her face was bloodied


have to consider it in a number itself which separates it from possibility or fair notice standards because now you're just looking at you know it's an animal unto itself when you're looking at toby


it was in your control to get that letter from the e e o c but that's a procedural mechanism all the facts there were the basis for the second case that happened when he filed the first case in davis here is on either side they're saying


lawsuit that expressly allowed the splitting of claims there was an agreement to allow after the settlement pursuit of the claims following the settlement under the insurance under the insurance agreement and that agreement


you can see that five c is focused on the entity regulated contains no no guarantee for an individual and as this court knows when when the legislature uses different language in different parts of a statute you presume different meanings and the


heaven worker entered into a guilty plea with the government he pleaded guilty to a dot to the to the fraud charges but rather to a misdemeanor tax charge and agreed to forfeit his interest in the two annuities specifically says the defendant's


clear when exactly he got the drugs i just think that's not those facts are developed in the record but he did get the car two weeks before i mean a lot of that to your meal cases they don't even know the drugs are in there it's not their car they sort of see someone gave me a car and i was foolish


originally been pled as to felony possession of drug charges as well as arrests for possession of a concealed weapon conspiracy to commit robbery assault with a deadly weapon possession of drug paraphernalia


was perhaps hyperbole i suspect it was probably di wood's respectfully submit that it was probably declined because the u s attorney's office had a cough threshold for drug cases and it was substantially higher than thirteen kilos


affidavit from their benefits administrator that said this is our planet has all of the things that are resting required that was another misrepresentation so you should amend you know that if the if the plan washington force its rights it's got to have


that the judge was to imagine judges or is quite clear that that's what the consent authorized and from there he moved on to citing the standard from amanda know that consent is not authorized destructive searches and then to justify the search of the boot the court relied


does require clearly under if i decide to turn it off statute fourteen zero nine b if the paternity of such child is established at any time while under the age of twenty one but the point is paternity of such child


civil procedure provisions that have been submitted and they concern the wait that's right to report a certain evidence but they don't there's also no the sisters have not in any way addressed how their document that they have it


that was on the form forty seven seventy three did not deal with whether the person there was but it would be a model for could legally possess it or own it and of obviously it was apparent that the person that he would


in standing by for whatever the supreme court does of course we have to do our best at this juncture with what we have and then the other matter that a brown deal with that could affect this case


crime i think there is to be a showing of psychological or physical harm and they can be helping the government prosecute the people who brought them in with that person be able to have a firearm for protection if they're just in a status based on the you visa or any sort


yes the smack of the tire was a search jones applied a purely property based analysis to hold that the installation of a g p s device on the exterior of a car and for the use of that device to track the car


we have under the declaratory judgment a right to seek a review of that if we have standing and if it's right the only rightness argument that i think you know is kind of a hard one but a technical one is is it pre assessment


other factors that the district court specifically articulated to support this up or variance the harm this is a general that the charge was just a general six forty one charge harm that the defendant caused


election remedies works in state court and i believe the court also was a proper understanding of the of bailable remedy remedy under the fourth amendment or


intentional tort claim against one of the our state workers you can't bring in you got to go and you have to go to federal court that's not the law there's no case to say that the state law never forces players to federal court never does


did he have the authority to stop the foreclosure or work up some sort of an agreement there was not evidence going into that dept of whose authority i mean is helpful as that would be today what mr taylor said is i'm guessing to this application if


was a case in each hundred seventy two in which there was a joint fraud charge against eight defendants it was a texas land case and a default judgment or it was a decree pro confessio at the time was obtained against one of the


the claim against the partners is the same claim and they were being sued as partners so they that when they answer and and contest the statute of limitations they must have standing to to challenge that and at the time


day we have seen nothing and because of that mr silva on reconsideration went and collected these documents he did what i think any good person who's charge who believes he's innocent who is


specific thing that these employees were charged with doing which is misappropriating trade secrets misusing confidential information etc despite the common sense that those things were wrong and they shouldn't use their access for those purposes ok i think we have the order


been and the high end on the consecutive and that's how the court found that there was third prong plain error because the court started from a higher range a higher consecutive range than it should have started from so i think that answers the


evidence from a suspect who's suspected of having does that answer your question your so


years and he knew that the close circuit t v was not recording unknown to him within a matter of months before this incident the city upgraded the video


versus city of columbia mistaken where were you had before you had this state created danger theory and there were some questions as to you know how that may apply on the merits but then there was also the questions about you know what's what's clearly


been asking i think are simply not present in this appeal because again we're in a posture where the liability was granted summary judgment in favor of mr alvarez if the court thinks that there are factual disputes as to that the proper resolution of that would be to find


you have a pattern jury instruction that references crime of violence including offensive touching and this law was pretty well settled that it doesn't equate to a crime of violence for purpose of the guideline application


the when this regulation was first of act there were statements made by the commission and by various spokesman of the commission about how it was going to enhance the ability of small businesses to get seed capital the reinforcement actions on number of facts fact pattern since


to the public well and in this context and i don't want the whole background i mean this context suppose this was my vintage baby in texas he buys five


untenable position at that point to that then waive a constitutional error that he has no knowledge of because it certainly is already an objective it at that at the sentence at either at trial or at sentencing when it was put in the pre sentence report i mean his lawyer didn't submit any objections to the


so you know he's still going to be doing ninety seven months so it's hard to see the harm here and of course on the fourth prong i'd like to point out all the plainer issues here the fourth simply hasn't been addressed and this court


nelson right what we know we know the outward conduct but we don't know exactly how he went about it we don't know how he took steps to hide it from my client etc and so they presented a witness


plea and laughter was a problem so what is unfair an unreliable with regard to someone saying not that i have perjured myself but


stand up in court and stand beside their verdict had the courage to announce their very you know open court and in the process of doing that he talked about the finale about whether or not about the finality of a not guilty verdict and the fact that a guilty


the first step but when you're putting be stronger i mean if you look at the reasons that were given in john john's opinion as to the reason for each of the ten jurors it's not in the record as i understand it sure but but the evidence you're


discriminatory manner manner regarding african americans then what does that mean how do you invest in made a lot but but but again if you put it in the mix i submit your honor that it does it is of great consequence how do we


why should he called the prosecutor and order to establish a fish yes i have two to having two answers to that question the first i think is miller is instructive on this point i will read from them


the department for further proceedings now it's my understanding of a p a law that when this court vacates the those regulations the twenty eleven rule then


time was relying on that advice he had received before they got to court and and at a time when you're sitting in the office let's assume for the moment that right there was there was no surprise there was no speaking to an immigration expert at that point in


very direct and simply worded we call a quick so he might have to explain that but if this is whom he has problems with english he could easily have an interpreter and we understand that he requested


are identical to what was submitted to the district court page from page verbatim but then i hope we presented a better brief to this court with the time and the understanding to work on it and to consider haring and all this new guidance that we're receiving from the supreme court so yes


fifty motion as well as after the verdict centered would have to preserve that objection to the denial of the summary judgment with a motion post verdict of a post trial motion


direct conflict and in this petition we argued number one that the third circuit or the supreme court of the virgin islands has acknowledged that the third circuit is the highest court


liability even when intrusted with a non delegate will duty but if you read through each of those cases they're all involving independent contractors a bank that hired somebody to keep ice off the sidewalk a company that hired some of the salvage of vessel not


you know the notion of confidential information here is is is was a an add on to try to get more here it'll be the it'll be litigated and i'm confident it will be determined there is none at issue here certainly there are


complete record as to what's what what does this job really require and and who's you know it's a there's the union as a watchdog is to whether these are truly the essential job functions and the seventy pound is really required and i think the


take out the argument that there was a pleading images or a fleeting materials policy there was nothing for the commission to explain the the commission's order cannot be invalid on the basis of failure to explain a policy that hampers


of a crime which although serious was not violent does not meet a traditional requirements for disarmament and that has to be taken seriously and the governor will not say that there's going to be some other some


point three three seven the dash to t was limitations when the period prior you can tell us how this asset this asset sells or three or two or three comply with that regulation that


to ensure that the ruling is a for if for the existing record this court can in fact perform the methodology that wilson


private practice and her character is outstanding you know when throughout this process we speak with people who know the candidates very very well and everybody has spoken amazingly highly of the character