no matter where it comes from but the fact of the matter is is that there was no evidence that my client went to the state of washington to bring drugs back


ira or do we need to decide that question now i don't know the answer that but that's what the judge what the judge really did was he kind of threw it out there and say it is just we don't


of taking the easy road drugs and crime and that was the government's position my position i took is you know you can't you can only bleed so much out of a turnip and that turnip didn't have much in it and so was judge mcdonald trying to haul


blakeley pre book book or understanding of statutory maximums that was found in united states code booker is saying statutory maximum with under mandatory sentencing guidelines is not found in the united states code but instead is the high end of the


that the sentence because it was less than a year they were trying to argue that it inherently was a misdemeanor and i think that's where the court had trouble was that it could have still been a felony just with a very low sentence are there any other


as i have looked at the rule it is not clear what would be presented to it that they're obviously this court would come forward with a question to be presented that being constitutionality of the current worker's compensation statute in the state of montana


sees and the answer was original question is that there have been no findings as to whether there was probable cause to arrest him ultimately provide this ultimately arrest that's correct your honor and i would also suggest to your honor's believe that mr that the


periodic trips back and forth between california and vancouver and vancouver was where he built his met and he dealt with a lot of math he admitted that in the eighteen months even dealing messed with a street value of at least one


montana and throughout the west of that has indian country and we every once in a while come across people like a t m who don't respond but you'll never see all the ones that do and when you say how good are the programs in the least in the context of this particular


ensure that any salvage for importantly restoration activities which is which are activities that could actually improve the compaction from these past tractor logging that salvage and restoration quote will not increase the area of the disturbance and will be designed to move the


fire in oregon history five hundred thousand acres they had nineteen thousand acres that they were going to proceed so the fact they did a stamp all sampling is is well except in the scientific community you don't have to


that they do that by doing just what they did here where that where they said they've looked at the right parrying there is they've the minimum disturbance through the use of helicopter logging they've gone out where they've done


act on deception your honor he said and just about i know he said well the only really didn't matter about the informant because she just triggered the investigation but i can't tell whether he says the policeman was trying to fool the magistrate


again we would suggest that the court has to consider that that was a conclusory opinion that it was stated by the perception that the officer had there was an expectation that he was going to smell marijuana


the background in the photograph is distinctly different in mister and mr adams photograph the reason is set out in the briefing basically the department


mr adams is a lighter skinned person that was the description that was in the newspaper i'm i'm i'm i don't think that's my question correctly here's your objection that the other pictures


to be a doctor to know that these types of injuries are so severe that you have to have some type of specific intent i mean this is not it's not really biting his nose


the matter is but if you look at the road he's talking about the nine mile molson road it's shaped like a porsche to the top half of it let's say it's twelve o'clock at the very top of a couple of miles from the border very close to the border and at the bottom


that's true but this is one of the narrow exceptions to the normal double jeopardy rule defining on the merits when it's under the court's supervisory powers under rule forty eight when there's a delay and that was the reason for the dismissal


after the meeting and our manager mark certainly the vice president of the west said everybody look go back and do a last suite check the back drawers of your offices the trunks of your cars and don't make any call about whether you think things


doesn't do any and doesn't do him any good as far as first so he just has remedy is not to refashion his remedy is not to respond and i would respectfully disagree in terms of what happens in montana state court because i think the


course brings up the presumption issue that we're all dealing with if that is troubling to the court the united states would ask the court to hold ruling on that till after her entire after claiborne and read i'm assuming the unconscious


there is just no restriction that would apply to stop the county here from seeking costs that were approximately caused by an act of racketeering activity the rico violations that congress put into the statute in one


have a distinct enterprise and by the plaintiff's own allegations and i refer you specifically to the first two minute complaint paragraphs eighteen nineteen and twenty years really no independence between us and the enterprise indeed in paragraph eighteen


people do if that sort of a knowing your knowing what their purposes but she wasn't charged with that she was charged under subsection one and so it's materially distinguishable i don't quite understand we say she has to be actually packaging the goods


that point the government says that it didn't respond to that and that's sort of how it came to be but the simple fact is that roger or excuse me magistrate judge roberts didn't leave anything to chance and that decision


would have been made available in the bankruptcy courts not only with the taxes first that had to be subtracted but also in any distribution to the bankruptcy estate would also have been subject to taxes that's undisputed based on the testimony of the


asbestos also had methamphetamine and therefore had to be removed as contaminated it would have required special contractors to remove its disposal therefore they had to do both they were not only checking for methamphetamine but in the case of the ceiling


the record there's also an actual actual expectation of privacy in his briefcase but it the court never says that having made that broad statement about closed containers you must also


excluded every piece of defense evidence even with serious slants against the defense the jury was still not initially unanimous i don't think it's fair to say that given that if you would have


there is a serious question raised as to the authenticity of the document and the testimony in this case was that by the defendant that he had signed a contract and sent it to mr rather


reason that's important is because it is logging and other activities are allowed to occur that natural regeneration would be destroyed so not only do we think that the science was not dealt with adequately but it wasn't dealt with


but he may in the future but the other relevant question that marcia answered is what do you review when judge posner you have pointed out that there were two evaluations formal evaluations done by the forest service on all of the information that the plaintiffs


and you know your client won't do it you know then you're left without a point where you know i try to work with you i want you to be with your children i want you to be law abiding but you won't you know i can really get take it a water but i can't make you drink well now i need to deter


that's given the order that was produced by the court asking the parties to address three specific cases i would start with those cases in order it's a wise choice i think your honor with


same conduct same people and i have to indicate that amanda brothers the quality third in this case was accused of being a coconspirator as was a pitch as was tess fluff in missoula brian didn't


customers and of course we cleared one of those away or negotiated one of those away and lost want to trial so perhaps mr stevens is right there are not are not separate conspiracies they are separate dealers the point of course is that they are separate


to have to carry the burden with respect to this kind of thing where you've got a photograph that obviously goes sort of when to clarify one other thing is that in the argument before the jury at the end with the argument physical physical


my name is tom waldo i'm the attorney for southeast alaska conservation council and the other plaintiffs with me at the counsel table is my colleague eric jorgensen and i'm going to try to reserve about four minutes of my time for rebuttal are i


and but we don't have reason to doubt that it is very likely it is possible that if you were to have particularly adverse weather conditions where you had a lot of snow combined with a lot of snow melt all at once


have an obligation have a fiduciary obligation or something of that nature to the members of the class and there needs to be some scrutiny over someone just walking in a filing a complaint like this i'm not suggesting it's the case with these people but these folks


break though and decided that it isn't any different you still have to prove the same things as you always did in order to have jurisdiction in federal court still the burden of the defendant the


me but there was another enhancement due to the grouping of the factors now as i read three d one point two which is page three thirty eight of the guidelines manual


means and we know that by looking into the arizona pattern jury instructions as my co counsel mentioned for example the arizona pattern jury instructions for a conviction under thirty thirteen thirty four of something a seven lists all of the


therefore you don't file your own return your items of taxation are reflected on the owner's return directly it does not mean your honor that the entity does not exist what's the status of the


in the service agent k ok well we'll let you bring the petition and we're not going to take that as an admission it's just a g case petition will just be the vehicle where you can do got the substantive issue that's at the bottom of this well


i'd like to quickly address the convention against torture claim if i may the agency relied on two independently dispositive grounds there one the likelihood of torture in nepal and two that the


it's important keep in mind that from the process standpoint there has to be a showing of prejudice to want to hear petition has never expects what's tricky about it because there's some you know little bits and pieces that i think petitioner can basically utilize


large that it's federal even though none of the other factors are involved certainly it seems to me point of a story and might be one of them isn't it could be when you have but that wasn't only on just interdependency it was actually


curiam decision in two thousand and nine is somehow on done i would not say and on your honor i would say there is some prior precedent which seems to me like with it every time if somebody tells me but i can quote this prior president i


serious physical injury to another person right right and my argument is that that kill that's kind of brings into the intent realm that we discussed with counsel in the prior case yes or no recklessly


not dependent upon what the business committee members know by personal information based on secondary information based upon their their trumped up charges that they they were bringing and those are in the record at seven twenty five


constitution mr st marks is a member of the business committee and as a member of the business committee he is the chairman of the business committee because he runs for that particular office some tribes do


this is likely to come out the other point that he did want to address concerns the the torture and as you noted judge owens


unclear to what extent he was authorized to do everything that he did to what extent does the employer have an internal grievance procedure that privilege this or that the regulations allows even assuming they can prove that he violated hipaa i think the strong showing of you


a leg to stand on but here we have a person who presents himself and declares that he's homosexual he describes his entire history in then the judge says this testimony is vague and i disagree that it was vague and there after the


consider it because she failed to raise it this question and be deciding how she sort of litigated the claim that really was for her council to decide both between especially the harsh doesn't and i mean i think there are exceptions to exhaustion well your


police and he gave no reason why he didn't include that with the application and that's a material admission and finally it simply implausible that if he was under surveillance by the chinese police for several months and had to report to them periodically he could not leave his


her in between game they weren't doing it when they kidnapped her i mean we are they were i didn't hear your question they were like that they didn't think like that when they when they tried to take her originally the judge determined that she was


it's evolving it is becoming problematic and now this group it's similar to when homosexuals perhaps were not recognized as being targeted in other countries and now it's recognize that they are viewed as a separate


how that's relevant when you're talking about change country conditions because you're talking about changing a condition that because it's across this i take from that it's kind of opaque reasoning but if you keep parsing it it starts to make more sense there


you all right the drama lopez versus sessions is submitted thank you counsel


this was not properly served because they couldn't read the signature yes because it was because not because it was sent to the wrong address and not because it never got there that's


introduce a possible fly in the ointment here but both of you are and we are understanding the term criminal history in a very narrow sense which is there's no criminal


your best point that you want to make or to point as to why this is exceptional surely my my point is that randy holder pro controlled gates should not form the basis of an adverse


aeration will petition and now says that documents itself sufficient he did not make that are going for the immigration judge or the board and that can't be a basis for overturning not as i said this is not what it was found but


the right place and it wasn't agreed to by the fish and wildlife agencies it didn't say well yes we do need some population goals although that kind of said that it just said we're going to study it a while longer there's no effort because the council doesn't


i think i'm quickly summarizing what he said but why isn't that just an elaboration i mean it's not inconsistent is it it is not the characterization i mean these absences


same's went out you know his or her own way to find not existing facts you go on to deny this case he or she didn't even make a decision whether or not the testimony of the


court and i have to admit you know i read many cases and found there's inconsistency and so i think it's up to the court in the future to make more decisions to square


to the first issue is mr cardenas as i see in that the court would remain and the court still has to determine whether equitable tolling applies in until which date and if the m t r was a timely so thus it could still be significant


passed this rule saying you could reduce your twenty five years to life if you met certain criteria in fact the statute says the court if the court finds you are eligible shall do blah blah blah


this court said in hilo versus alaska that's not an attack on the original judgment for this is like a new proceeding independent of the judgment absolutely on


it leaves the court a name is nicholas marquis i represent what he says look i will see you a couple times yes you do have me a couple times and we saw counsel for the government twice yesterday and today so


i determine if it was an extension or not an extension was was you know what was an extension of what we have here and they are twenty when i think they decided that i think they said this is not an extension this is a


pino was actually in the military at the time so he's not actually a former military personnel the letter from his partner speculates about the deaths of the other servicemen as well and only asserts that the people looking for years looking for her partner


to provide bormann well it's not clear the the there was no way to know ahead of time that i j bias until he ruled on the on the situation on the case or


persecution or something is it issue and that's that's where i have some difficulty for two reasons one is we don't have jurisdiction to review directly a


petitioner situation would receive the same protections the requirement for a particular social group includes that that social visibility it's not simply does the gang see this individual it's does society salvadoran society


visibility was looking towards the persecutors themselves subsequent to that the this court as well as the board has issued cases since just think decision by the judge in this case in two thousand and thirteen have issued multiple cases further clarifying


exactly how that amounted to a sanction like what the board would have needed more the judge would have needed more information about what it cost to then find a private school for their son and what their particular economic circumstances was such that that having


so with that in mind returning to judge smith's questions about supposition and where is this evidence and what is the evidence here he's a low level person he's agreed with that slow person is not of


it wanted to engage in violence against the father was because he wanted to take over the form because he was as your client said greedy is that a protected


absent an explicit explicit address credibility determination the petitioners testimony must be credited for just a minute that's not exactly the rule the rule is that that would be so


and q stated incorrectly that he got the timing of easter now in correct now i would like to remind the court that he was talking about an easter that occurred three years prior and easter is what's called a moveable


china because he had been arrested which was april th and he stated that he got his passport and i understand the question was got and not applied for but there was no explanation for why he would have applied for a passport just before


this testimony and i think that the standard of review here really just asked whether the government's decision is supported by substantial evidence and what the government is pointing to here is imagined evidence even if it's plausible there


i don't know your honor i mean to be honest i see indiscernible and transcripts all the time it's just the tape does not record if the if it's freezing would there be a different notation not that i'm aware of we would


and that goes back to the point the observations we made about the coca cola bottle and their decision in the us p t o decision to register the night force design it was the night force that's the name of the other


that's contrary to his own preliminary examination testimony so he uses that to get the arrest warrant and it's contrary or at least the preliminary examination seems more accurate can we use his own words to say at least this should go to the jury as to him


indictment but we could have proven that charge at trial and all the evidence the jury had for it was enough to convict him on the failure to file charges as well but even if even if we could not


thing occurred but that affidavit does not in any way defeat diversity in the adversity of interest that existed at the time the lawsuit was filed the cases the united states what about what about this way of thinking about of the mean you would think the fund


requires we would have to look at whether there was a directive to him to violate the law or or to refuse to do something that


in this say in this case where that's why he was not even even even if he had he did not get notice of what was going on a state court case but he his mental state was that the case was was concluded and it really goes to


would speculation but i suspect because he was unable to communicate with the client regarding the court's directives regarding discovery he felt it was necessary to withdraw from that case and the record indicates that that motion withdraw was served on a pallet and there was a hearing on that


on his computer but it did did it show that it could not have been deleted prior to their seizure your honor by monder standing of the the forensic analysis that was conducted by mr


hardware do you know anything about that in this case whether that was found on any of the computers i do not i haven't seen any indication of the whether anyone discovered anything about the mac idea address


examine it not from the bankruptcy courts perspective of saying i want to know with certainty you have to examine it from the perspective of sunshine has identified its brand as evidence two hundred eighty nine cows citizens


sun sign provide its own funds to purchase any of these cows i think on some of that they did the first lease it is for the first fifty cattle that were clear i think in that case they did


before the debtor gets possession and begins acquiring rights in their own we had the same problem with the the second lease there was testimony that one of the waar was actually made with the pretty as opposed to


cunanan and we paid him directly that's two hundred eighty five head of cattle that when with my clients money the reason why that is significant your honour's is because we get back to the burden and the tracing issues


ruling and ruling on futility yes it was it was instructed that if i would if i pled it she told me and it's in the transcript cited in our brief she told me that if i played it in our answer that it would be stricken i


what they've gone to is the creech test in tennessee in every case post creech has gone to the restatement second and that test as i see it and you tell me if i'm wrong was not applied by the district judge to determine if


partnership is one of many private lenders to the debtor and it has timely filed a proof of claim in the amount of approximately one point seven million dollars the family partnership has commenced an adversary


the in the case excuse me particularly the how case for middle district of florida in one thousand nine hundred eighty eight which states quote under section eleven forty one of the bankruptcy code


that they have a non dischargeable claim with respect to sort of the narrowing of the issues this case is very similar to the one in eagle pitcher and it's a six circuit case i believe


the plan essentially provided excuse me the attacks on the plan income excuse me the the attacks were after the plan was confirmed all the plan payments were made and the case was closed


say did juror eleven deprive them of a fair trial through extraneous influences is that is that a proper question to be asking i think absolutely is judge moore but i think that the way you


was a juror five not sure eleven who initially was was reluctant to discuss a particular count he they she had a talk with him the next day he came in and he was willing to discuss that count and they were able to reach a verdict shortly thereafter


same television and internet services from any provider that's willing to provide them in the agreements don't stop there they also provide that other providers other than crystal clear itself will have access to the neighborhoods provide


flags that point the court to a decision from jenkins v national public radio one hundred six federal index nine ninety one the sixth circuit two thousand and four which said if you have irregularities in the hiring process that sufficient for causation and pretexts and there


state's outpatient show that they would have but what we argued your honor was that the states only had a temporary deprivation of information they had all the names and addresses by two thousand and twelve but they learned in the course of the investigation


lawful for example food stamps or lawful but it courts the second circuit held that the frontal it's frauds regarding food stamps falls under the illegal goods whatever or maybe you know you're not


realizing that you know the very distant credible story that the economy and the government even say ok i just want to know it's just a list of eight include the two african american males to the government asked the lawyer that question it's not in the record but i did ask


and the court actually determined there was sufficient evidence to show that mr terry met met his heightened burden to show that he was singled out for in permissible reasons i e is disability remember this is a reduction in


that he interviewed for they run the gamut there are some that were middle school english teaching positions and there's record there's testimony and there are current that he wasn't appropriate for middle school english teacher position because he hadn't taught middle school


later with regard to training he received there is nothing to indicate that miss king could not have done the same thing if given the opportunity but in this case chris brown did not give her the opportunity in this case chris brown downsized her and was in the process of


simply cantor refused to agree on the amount so therefore there's never an invoice so therefore you can rely upon this pay of paid concept and never pay


invoicing provision only deals with amounts that the parties have agreed to for the disputed amounts there's a chain you have to go through that starts at g c three which deals with clay you don't have to have the money from the government if the parties have agreed but you


of controlled substances in this particular case that was dismissed that counts dismissed but the the facts of this also leads us to believe that this is an improper imposition of restitution


belief that there was a potential defense and now it doesn't show that he's innocent but i'm not sure that shows it depends what i think it does because the defense well first of all in terms of the defense we had the burden is not to demonstrate


interim court case that talks about that but in terms of withdrawing the plea and ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to plea negotiations and defense and investigative defense these things work together and the laugh


normal standard of review and here based on the reasons that judge cook brought up these are important issues i mean detail or becomes an unintended beneficiary of a positive development in the op it goes his way but the real issue is not taylor the real issue becomes the law itself


with that in part is because we believe they did so based solely on his and is knowledge little other coconspirators had used assumed names and that's why we asked for instruction from sadler to make it clear that that piece alone standing alone could not be


the truck during that time so someone did deliver the truck to the client the trailer all right so the following is that the theory though is your theory no you could not go out in a snowstorm in a snowstorm went from


during that time that's the key point he was obligated to stay with us show german at least for a couple days ok all right so whether whether there was a legitimate reason for terminating him for terminating him or not


medical treatment for an intoxicated detaining the we are saying that the corrections officers oh are title to qualified immunity because there was


specifically then under padilla was he owed by the judge or his lawyer that they didn't tell you what those consequences would be it's very different you're either deported or not deported so what are the other


prosecutor admitted that at the sentencing hearing of course that he was badly missed in form and he was soon as to say that forty six months in


to be relieved of the immigration consequences and be allowed to come back into the united states and be with his family his wife and his two children well it might be related division immigration and if he is if he is


and i realize that it was thirty three years ago that africa came to this court as an intern for us as as a from a large law firm and so for thirty three years i've had the pleasure of arguing cases in this court in front of


money and once the probate courts tentacles are in it the state court has determined what's been identified on the petition they in good faith believe it was probate a bill that was the avenue for the government and they had notice an opportunity to attend the


and there is a contract here and it doesn't even have an audit required the only mention of an audit in that suppose a contract says hey we dock you pack are permitted to audit ourselves occasionally that's it so so there's no no


certainly there is no obligation that i have to ask potential jurors specific questions and as a general practice i generally don't depending on what the topic is she was not the only one that put down that she was a victim of a crime there were other


has been able to truly point articulate what that would be the court found that it would have expected a just a sorry to have done it with a much more furtive matter to carry out that to carry out that objective where as opposed to per se if


says that the defendant would read the plaintiff here attempted to get up and continue flying the plane to doesn't recall that that's the different


this case proceeds and goes to trial what's going to be the the the fact issue and what will be the evidence that the jury will have to evaluate what i think i want to stop being dismissed because i think


complaint from any customer after they have been i mean after june two thousand and fifteen there has been no complaint from any customer after mr brown was put on a performance


it's not guaranteed by any means and even though the burden is on the defendant to show that he's entitled to three points i think in this case where


out that this was mr johnson's residence where the gun was found and it actually wasn't objected to in his sentencing memorandum he did not raise in his sentencing memorandum that where the gun was found in the basement in the


months while she was in this period while while she was in the operating room the question really isn't whether she had ever been on f m l a that's that's a given the starting point it assessing the case


listening twelve o five the the o'jays r f c assessment did not properly include the limitations of mr right heart social functioning and concentration persistence or pace you know the there's under listing


and believe it during here we have we have a number we have many prohibited acts over a standard period of time with the appellate probably back and forth between misery


says there was no hallway and so they do prove that i agree that that was in her testimony but that was just one of potentially many such incidents it at summary judgment if there's a contemporaneous note that says something


radio to newspapers were there this is a public forum and this should have been a public trial and why what he did didn't make any sense


second appellants request to expand this public trial right is in the wrong posture for this case he's asking this court to expand that right


part of the initial charging document and the facts quite frankly are that he had both on that day in illinois as part of that incident he had both a knife and a gun so they


the statute as we see in this court's decision in gunderson so you're focusing on the reason why someone needs to register as opposed to the elements of registration requirement itself your honor we're focusing on both we're


saying at a high level when you look at the individual who must register it is both individuals who are charged and convicted of some of the union right offenses that is one reason the statute is overbroad it is also over broad because of the


elements which do not require actual knowledge of the substance in question just actual knowledge of possession of a substance that then happens to be a controlled substance there's also an active trace requirement and the act is race requirement is that


requirements and these are the elements of the offense and then there were other court of appeals cases there that would seem to conflict because with respect to the actus reus there you had i think it was silent transport or sell


i'm sorry a fentanyl analogue is not insignificant if mr edmunds had dealt with five point nine grams of only heroin his sentence would have been his guidelines would have been twenty four to thirty months if he had done


and so the regulations say provisions of this are some part separate why apply to affected facilities in coal preparation and processing plants those performance standards and some part wire applicable to any of the following affected facilities two of the primary


with federal law or guidance then then there should be deference and and this court rep recognized uncomfort like as long as north dakota was exercising its primary


month or so after the act the bad act occurred he made lots of contact with his employer and the next thing you knew he was demoted to running a used car lot and i think it's pretty clear the nexus is


this come back to me after you do an accounting i want to find that what's going on here and the it through oh i'm not even going to order foreclosure so that the district had the power to order foreclosure a year ago but did not do that so what is the


reports found that they were ineffective and then i would also point you to page one hundred and twenty dollars in the appendix the domestic violence shelter one domestic violence shelter was looked at in mexico city in the report found quote none of the women


that the attorney general did not raise the standard for the government's on willingness or inability to protect the complete the complete helplessness standard and the th circuit said the inability or unwillingness standard is interchangeable with the


legal threshold you drive there's either an injury or death that's liability right there involuntary manslaughter requires something different it's not a strict liability is that it has this additional measure a requirement that add something for the


at least once during the actual closing arguments and then again in the rebuttal arguments in trying to refocus the jury on what the elements were that they needed to find in doing so and believe she went through and she listed out the actual conduct similar to the way i


but obviously they are unique in that they did not but i don't know the numbers of states that they did and did not briefly as i mentioned judge kelly with respect to the defend trade secrets act claim i


not shown to be a reliable informant so that's a that's a significant part of the what did at least let's putting aside his real whether he's reliable or not what he thinks


along with a number of other items and it was a living type area in the garage the main part of the garage itself which had couch some chairs table there was a stove area with pots and


is the government relying on that or does the government agree with opposing counsel that it can't be considered your honor i'm going to be completely honest we added that argument to address this court's decision and feels i believe one of the ways kidnapping resulting in


decision is not grounds for title nine liability now there are three reasons we would ask that this court affirmed the district court's order an opinion judgment excuse me in favor of loading university the first is that there was no evidence which


interpretation that they knew either the speed representation or the printer had representation was false at the time they made it and you know that goes to the heart of it what we pled was in that the


but again it wouldn't be a lie it could be implied because of the says that the entire field was preempted and this


revenues are can be used for if you look at it as a whole as it pertains to revenue every bit of revenue that comes out of a casino is regulated so for instance if the tribe were to handle it the state brought up a management contract


tried to close the door and officer stopped him now the other statements that officer trosa made it is own testimony is that he stopped that he stopped the door from being closed which was heard also an


then and the supreme court said at that point they could rush right in and or exigent circumstances and sort of freeze the scene collect evidence things like backups of exigency that would seem to undermine your argument to some degree correct you're on and you're absolutely


good morning and minute please the court my name is j j conway and i do represent the appellant's in this case ivan and melissa mitchell i'm joined today by miss christina hahn from the u s secretary of labor office we are


party in this case the air ambulance provider would not the private images of standing because the mitchells have not assigned a right to sue in this contract or any other type of contract with a rd party there is nothing between blue


participants and if we look at a risk and the reasonable us test i think don't you have to look at the purpose of the risk of plan itself and under twenty not


court made that were improper under the summary judgment rules we can also look cheerio whether amanda engage in protected activity the district court focused on the fact that amanda didn't


and danced but they never did any competitive dance and i understand that there are two separate categories of competition high kick which i presume does not involve any sort of athletic lifting vaults or anything where males would be at a significant


your client what the rule of law is or whether it's always subject to revision by the court of the supreme court and your honor i think that if he had committed his crimes after


making is i think there's a solid argument that there is no particular area here and if there is not if if there is not if there's a good argument that it doesn't amount to play near but then the other part probably have here too is when the jury finds him not guilty of that


their right to counsel before they can actually see the judge when they see the judge the judge makes no inquiry and has absolute immunity is not a bar even under the ordinance he was discharged the duty to make


monetary relief that has been brought about that point and that's my understanding too but in answer to your question the answer is i don't believe so had a claim for fraud for instance been included as a guess as part of


thousand documents on his computer the mr color was very in tune with this case and also you know participating in the case extensively and he was bringing in his own computer


did not have knowledge that they were engaging in prostitution it was his belief that they were either doing exotic dances or that they were giving foot massages foot massage that was his business plan if you will now this was a defense that


about the nature of the underlying criminal conduct that gave rise to the the pursuit the first place how do you think that colors this particular case in our view are your order riots where engine was


stated that retiree health care was subject to a direct different racial clause and wide of that plain language and the consistent line of precedent precedent interpreting similar language the district court should not have entered an injunction because plaintiffs have no likelihood of


three asking for a new trial primarily on the insufficiency of the evidence mr loki was found guilty of harboring a person from arrest which is up violation of eighteen u s c ten seventy one the fact of been outlined


tribal police officers everett was just sitting at the table i mean he didn't do anything other than say no one simple statement no when september asked him if he knew where tyson


this company so it made more sense in a for the court wanted to abstain we certainly want to give the court that the bankruptcy court that opportunity first to have the so access to the house that if the bankruptcy court


the five left on one overturned a stale if perspective application would create undue hardship on a party but there's no perspective application to the stale order once the sale are closed that was that sixty five isn't


independent third party witness elliott baumgartner testified in his deposition that was presented in district court that day that he was waiting for the for the road to clear and that he was waved across he testified that


before the black pickup truck pulled out there are a couple reasons why that cannot be relied upon first of all a party is not even bound by their own estimates as far as distances and speeds that's not something that's conclusive in this case


have more than just that post mortem snapshot of what was in the blood we have actually have on video here and the live witnesses testimony as to the course of events and judge erickson i think you're absolutely right that the jury is allowed to and required to look at


contributing cause and the multiple independent sufficient causes which were urged by the government at that time


now i think that's true that's one thing you can do is go back and look at the common law to see what's reasonable for congress to have done but ultimately i think it's controlled by what the text says and the tech


was born alive that's quite possible under our argument here but i don't have the text of a federal murder statute in front of me of course it couldn't be manslaughter involuntary manslaughter because it was with malice in the greater scenario there is why i ask is because the might


difficult for the them to gather those decisions they're not all in one place the immigration judge in that case had said there's never been a case about this group and it turns out there had been about fifty but what the court when it finally read those decisions said about half the time that


whatever i don't know that one number would be sufficient we don't have a definition for subgroups but what the board give me what the statute does clarify is that a group consists of at least two or more individuals and so


the defense say could come in that's exactly right your honor that's a good paraphrase of exactly how it happened but that was the hearing with mr steele it was outside the presence of the jury because the defense wants off the recording right that's right the defense wanted to offer the


have circuits that have basically adopted it that's why the government advocated that when they charged this case by they tried it on that case why there are going on but that cannot be the case for two simple reasons


court found that wendy brown and al brown proceeded to create a w companies and that al brown and windy brown then threw a w solicited and hired him


court in looking that letter said that could be characterized as a routine letter and and importantly if there would have been investigation at that point j king himself testified that he had misappropriated


subpoena all available to you you can flip over the stones but when you write a letter like tear x did to j king in two thousand and two and say hey remember your remember your role remember what you're


hearing rather i think the issue is whether or not they could have gotten relief in in this case because if you look at their complaint which i just detailed it most


point just once again that would be object when reasonable at that point to arrest after such a long period of time has elapsed well fifteen minutes and still on them on the public premises public


key i think of the analysis is there's two frauds and if you understand the discovery rule we can't be known we can't be held one to a standard knowing the inherently unknowable and concepts it's a question of fact not a question on


test it is not a dual purpose test as was argued in the brief i think there's a cite to a district court case that's not the law in this circuit this is an issue that's been covered that the f ca's retaliation claim is about


language about the company being able to unilaterally change the agreement it doesn't apply to the delegation provision because it has contract the delegation provision as contractual language that cannot be changed the whole arbitration agreement has been tracked to language that i would argue if the


is creating testimony is saying out loud isn't it true that this girl committed suicide only because of mr lay as actions and of course that the spouse


officer you know know what the law is and it's a pretty fine distinction for the officer to know you can't have a tie in the circuit you can't play somebody's face down when there's some resistance but you can't put pressure on them that's


and there is no evidence that they attempted to lay him on his back or place him in that way but there's evidence about a pill using a pillow to turn his head to turn its head but that doesn't change the there is no evidence that they attempted to not put him with the chest down the actual pressure


exactly the situation the judge arnold described as in his dissent and singleton which he said should be unconstitutional but the two judge majority said it isn't i mean this is exactly what happened in singleton you


irises secured claim in the chapter thirteen bankruptcy of mr and mrs austin the debtors and the amount of the ira secured claim hinges on the valuation of an asset reported in their schedules that asset


the settlement was approved by and received by the austin in july prior to the initial hearing or prior to the initial hearing excuse me so a claim involving an asset of the bankruptcy state


accessible parking spaces and i am a crime base has only provided for the moon is analysis and so there because i'm a company's did not provide missed davis with everything she demanded in her complaint what the district court should have done is to enter judgment in


reinstatement of the proposed rule the remedy you would like if you are right on the strictly on the unreasonable delay it seems to me the only remedy is to order them to take action not to direct what action must be taken at


nine nine point nine on the question depending on whether the action that wasn't being taken was good or bad in individuals view the question to me is whether the third branch the


that you know the first one is not the same as the last three well it sounds differently the timing is differently and your honor you tomo there's no evidence that there was anyone in that parking lot


let's just leave it at that and then everybody knows that there's no intent to waive anything but the problem is though sometimes the judges look over to the defense table and say the exhibits been offered is there any objection


want to make three primary points one regarding the batch clause and the proper construction the district court gave it the second relating the excess policy issue in the third relating to a number of plots with respect to the bad clause indorsement going some point at the outset to


these claims are precluded because the tribe was there as a representative of all its members not just those that were named and that the members in the second lawsuit were members in the first lawsuit so in this case i'm soon going back to the analysis


you know to somehow alter the divorce decree or deal with the arrest your client has a sort of a trump card says but i can go to federal court and invoke arrest and undo what the state court did that's not how i think it works your honor that's is that's a separate issue


without following the requirements of the hour which means you present the quadrate the plan administrator in the plan and makes those payments court didn't say that the state court did not have jurisdiction to decide violations of rights you agree that you


secondly the term an opposite has to be read again against the backdrop not as a pure mathematical calculation but as it's been defined in cases like concorde boat the ability to control prices were exclude competition


legislator could have believed was the purpose of this yes or no and i think we're supposed to approach the question i think i understand the question better respectfully your honor i would suggest that the court is not sitting here to determine what was each legislature


as your daughter's know that's the government's backstop on all of the arguments in this appeal the evidence here regarded the physical abuse of this the nine or ten year old child and the resulting in this injuries and


overwise valid was your honor the judge did not describe this as merely negligent quote this was very sloppy at the very least it's extraordinarily sloppy police work and to answer your question directly your honor


hypothetical it would raise questions with respect to the liability of the intermediary would it raise questions with respect to the liability of the ultimate purchaser


ey please the court my name is robert basters and i'm here to represent the appellant's in this case who are two political parties in north carolina the north carolina constitution party and the north carolina green party and their individual members and


eighth then also sets their deadlines so courts have determined that it is important to have the signature requirements for the petitions coming in after the primary and in north carolina it does come


of the election season and yes your honor but giving the plaintiffs three of one half years they have numerous election seasons to be gathering their signatures and the libertarian party


hundred eighty s when the absentee ballot provision was only requiring thirty days the absentee ballots only had to be ready thirty days prior to the general election now it's a full sixty days and when that


argument that there are only and only as applied to look at your circumstances as it applies to you we challenge in is as applied to a presidential party and the green party to their


occurred the mail fraud was pled and argued and the evidence supported in a manner that showed that the mail fraud scheme was complete well before commissions ever came about and that renders this case much more


departure of if this court order remand so although judge payne could issue the same sentence there's no way to know that he would and he should be given that opportunity to do that because this was a bundled science and if there are no further questions or appreciate the time from the


thirty as scheduled he was due when there at nine thirty he got there at nine thirty on her kiddy the customer had called in at eight an hour and a half earlier and said we need two trucks right away to pick up goods at


i think the reason it wouldn't be is because the case was in existence on august fourteenth because it was not dismissed until that day so it was again to go back to the appellants phrase it was alive and kicking on the fourteenth so they had one day left


provide all the correspondence all the e mails to the judge and that's what it is they're expecting him to be and the documents on which to base his ruling and then they find out later on where we didn't show him all the e mails we we went through and


it if i could just make my last four point here at the end of the day as judge king and the court as observed earlier the issue with ex parte contacts is whether or not there was prejudice to the defendant


that and are rather remarkable assertion when one considers that in the government's own rebuttal summation after we had or that mr mcdonald should be acquitted because the missile system


order to allow health care providers to keep their jobs and to keep their their medical licenses and nursing licenses and as part of that age to program ms harris could not administer narcotics to patients for several months when she returned from a six month leave


harris tries to surmount this problem by pointing to statements made in front of the region young point commission and the virginia board of nursing and i just wanted to address those briefly both of those are subject to a state statute that prohibit statements made during those proceedings to


qualified for the position an issue which she cannot hear that's


the bringing of a motion for appropriate relief only in the appellate court is the court with the jurisdiction to handle it and that's under fifteen a fourteen eighteen fifteen a fourteen eighteen allows these motions for appropriate relief to be brought in this is what you


what i have spent to complete it iow the unpaid balance to the contract if on the other hand the cost of completion exceeds the unpaid balance the contractor owes me the difference that is precisely the law of contract


man who will say anything to help himself anything he's done it before continue doing do it he's paid right now to work for the fayetteville police department he gets charges over and over again he has pending charges right now and has more


on the position of dealing with the medicine judge books and write the raises undisputed facts and from your perspective what needs to rise from the wreckage is something to show that other us faced the same situation but were not treated in the


know if the money's there because we don't have an accounting and we don't have any access to the records of the company and more the other point i want to make in terms of the cure issue and also the rescue it is not actually true that the operating room it places the risk and the


and she goes through all the ways they agree with the preamble their opinion was that this claimants obstructive lung disease was not substantially caused or contributed to by coal mine dust exposure not that it never can happen to anybody in the history of the world but that


go ahead i want to address judge wins comments about if we had the technology disk to distinguish smoking from coal dust would that would that change everything and i think that's a pertinent comment and what i would add to it is a


daughter his fourteen year old daughter what he did to her he'd be subject to prosecution for child abuse your honor i get all due respect i think that's incredibly strange this officer actually probably because he doesn't need to act as a human i when take lobster and


most recent supreme court cases dealing with qualified immunity the ass proffers as a kid case the supreme court even caution than actually called out the ninth circuit in particular the court said we have repeatedly told courts in the ninth circuit in particular


prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the safety of that individual in may because of its sexual orientation of the fact that the person was a transsexual what he say about the whole case well the whole case again it's not a medical


though that particular decision didn't come down from this court until august sixth two thousand and eight the events that already occurred in this particular case the events here were march seventh and eighth of that same year two thousand and eight but i don't know of


and the nicholas court cites to another more recent decisions of the maryland courts of appeals to prior maryland precedent in which defendants were actually charged with multiple counts arising from the same episode of conduct and receive sentences


process clause of the united states constitution and that involved new york on a court i'm sorry your honor that involved north carolina court proceeding yes your honor the proceedings in the lower courts and there


the intervention and related procedural issues have been briefed twice now in the main briefing and in the motion to dismiss briefing i'd like to focus my presentation on sealing in pseudonymity this is the first ever challenge to the operation of a database mandated by congress


statute maryland law that allows that stuff and so we under the court's ruling we'd have to look to california law to see whether the successful disclaimed ensured to recover and once that ruling was made then ironically the costs were locked in at sixty six thousand


irrelevant for purposes of duty to defend and there's no reason to believe that that's what they were furring to as medical expenses in the complaint because when he was asked in the deposition have you ever seen a doctor for either of those conditions he said


testified that he thought he might have high blood pressure he was in for or that he had suffered impotence we can look at those maps to address that issue was a lower court advantage but more importantly go to the very cases and repeatedly in the pallies


on to the stock and it had plummeted and an a lawsuit could have been brought you held on to this too long notwithstanding the caution flags that should have come off use you should


positive over time the sell ratings which had existed immediately after the spin offs were eliminated the district court found that those were considerations that could have lent support to keeping them funded you ran into may incorporate a great deal of market


we argue that the evidence presented in the april two thousand and twelve hearing shows two things first that counsel did make an attempt to consult did consult with cow with her client regarding an appeal but what about by


comes and now your client hires the former employees of a different company and under their of hourman agreement


you're oversimplifying it and perhaps doing a disservice to your cause because i do understand the fact that there are many small property owners surface right yes state owners who may not


legislature the best way to ok good but what i would say is there are some ways if you sit down and think about it and some of these issues try to do other than in federal court and class


stopped and detained in order for missed for a trooper morton two to arrested morton charged pitts with assaulting morton or assaulting during that that's not in the record your honor that is not something that


but we use the word abortion ok but but those are two ferry different things arguably and if one were convinced that they are two different things and that a challenge using


in applying the clear air standard the bankruptcy court found and the district court similarly found an adopted that in this is you want to pin the extent they're not paragraph for bankruptcy court order and


regard to downer and fishers ownership of the property then this in the property was placed in and remain title in both of their names intentionally that it had any bearing whatsoever on resulting


wife read what reason did you come to me with this in the name of the individual names were you in your wife instructed me that would be in my interest protect protect her so and the other page we also have d


introduce something else into that bolus to perhaps unintentionally and it finds its way in there and the question is whether that's dispersal yes i would agree and i i don't think that the absolute pollution exclusion requires any intent there is no case law that


defendant relies on it's not without limitation and that's pumpkin seed and the other cases that i've cited in my brief and limitations those proper limitations include concerns about harassment prejudice and interrogation that's


other abuse but it was certainly and i something that would have encompassed sheridan and i believe that the specific question is outside the record however the cac interviewer typically closes with where there are any other touches or have you experienced any other bad touches and


know about phrases to that effect and i'm paraphrasing your honor but i don't believe that at that particular interview that i have of the two of you are reciting it differently i guess we'll have to go yes and your honor i i do think


requirement here that was a slightly different case because faulkner involved more of a pinkerton liability situation where faulkner was not the individual who directly manufactured or directly distributed the substance that resulted in the death of the user


it which is to look at the arbitrator's of war and see that he exceeded his authority and reverse well but we have to assume that he did not understand that he had to apply


and she was injured in the hospital denied that she was their employee as a secondary argument she indicated that she was an apprentice my recollection of what the i was supreme courts held was


and millions of dollars that money because they are chapter eleven debtors would come into their bankruptcy estates and so it of course would have a conceive of full effect on their bankruptcy estates that money would then exist for their creditors so the idea


is what was mother's authority as owner of the sole voting shares to decide which of the six children would would would succeed


each of the if if the if the transfer was was invalid then it's undone and the two shares go back into the trust resume lead to the children


court eared in dismissing the breach of contract could it's tied together and the brass has also unique your honors and allowing only in cases of fire insurance for a lesser limitations period in the


where was what if the insurance company hasn't decided on the claim but then here what's the insured to do that there can still be compliance as under the language of the new york standard form policy and the met policy which is in the record there can be


wolf that that the that mr hayes cites and that case of the hale claim so that your arguments regarding a five year such limitations would apply in a hail claim as opposed to fire claim because it's not a


not there so what did he testify as to why they had to get off the west he said that because the nature of swinging the bundles and they often came in turned or not in the proper location


clearly in charge of safety their management officials and their their safety manual which was exhibit twenty nine specifically addressed the responsibilities of the foreman these four men were risk


criminal sexual abuse statute although it is required under the egger voted criminal sexual assaults fach you and in law often zone case the court rejected his


surplusage i think all you have to do here is look at the statute the statute clearly reaches conduct that does not require the use of or threatened use of violent force because the statute says thank


record disability perceived disability and in retaliation for accommodation requests respondent failed to reinstate me what we're talking about here the facts at issue that have been raised by the plaintiff are the exact facts that would


seems that at least below there is that there's a different theory and the theory below is that the intake questionnaire provided the notice not the charge could you address that event of a claim ok i'm not making that claim or even though it was in the


story of the current matter and extrinsic for all for be a fuel use that term is prior convictions that really don't set up or complete any of the story and i think that's obviously what we have here this california


several instances we argue below and it's in the record on appeal that my repurchased the loans voluntarily and had no actual obligation to do so and one of


in the notice you read the two together the the platinum people are obviously charged with knowledge of what's in their contract when they get the notice provision specifying thirty days they know that that means that


appellant at trial attempted to argue that he was entrapped into the commission of the crime by another inmate at the jail working at the behest of the federal government alternately the district court refused to submit an instruction on entrapment as a threshold


together and obviously if you need to meet the requirement of the eighty you're going to look to those guidelines so it seems that the courts of kind of said well this is the gospel that we're going to follow even if we assume that is all correct and that's where we need to look


judgment not just a motion on the pleadings meaning you need to come back with some real specific evidence or motion was also brought at the conclusion of discovery so there is no if you don't have that specific information at the time of our motion you didn't have it from the


we raised on our cross appeal which is the b m e h r a notice statute three sixty three point three three one as it was in a fact in two thousand and sixteen obviously whenever you're trying to interpret a statute the goal is to give the fact


government while the doors kicked open because it's a count in the indictment right and someone's going to give a road map of where we're going in the opening statement they might very well be expected to go through that charges and really the problem


up what is it first brought up first it was first found i think judge cut found it after the court the trial had been completed and he entered an order requiring both sides to brief the issue


that he found that those statements those statements about the fact that he was having his mother run it while he was on supervised release the fact he was going to take it back over from her when he was done


area is if there is a risk you always have to do it what did this court say in response it rejected that argument and said after reviewing minnesota case law however we can find no other negligent nondisclosure case or medical


given to the employer or any one of the parent authority for accepting applications employment applications clearly same submitted job application that was not only received by dollar general but whoever receives job applications through the online portal obviously has a parent


express ruling on judicial stoppel so this court riverview the judicial stoffel argument it would be in a weird situation having to give the district court discretion when it did make a ruling and i'll reserve the rest of my time for a bottle


says that he was in the national guard again and the date as they were previous employer yes and it doesn't have an end date and again all again this court has said you have to look at everything in total he did have all these conversations with matrix dollar general had in his


case i think it simply doesn't qualify under as a crime of violence and therefore the district court committed a serious error i'd like to reserve reserve a place


specifically that the sentence to be carried out is what the guideline range is at the time of sentencing that under the u s code that's that section is what brings it back on a rematch


back then they should be sentenced the same way as the original the other person that they piggybacked on the first time in other words judge if you have a and be sentenced on the same day then a and b should be sends the same if he goes up and comes back


brief the issue and there was no reason to concede that he wasn't gaining anything and even his counsel in the transcripts of these hearings she's seems


say well all the other stuff they want to throw up against the wall not only wasn't properly done because reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise factual or legal issues you put a raise before but didn't but it's just wrong to


specific as to the name of quote personnel involved now your honor that is the same exact language that was on the form in the burns case and as we pointed out in both of our greece this court did not impose a strict name all future civil


more and boyd still has seventeen fifty which is almost certainly a price i think it's too vague for the later to really understand what is happening now but that's were we got to view it as to what they


concentrate the most on and the order that i think that we need to address primarily as apple lease is the motion for just qualification of the entire city attorney's office of the city of lincoln i did want to just initially address


there is no severe risk serious risk of severe pain so as the stress will not be enough to cause the blood pressure to go up to cause the bleeding in the throat let's talk about the gas procedure right so let's just absolutely so here's the gas procedure right you just put a


witnesses and also with respect to the danger issue that only there is some basis for the court to conclude that nisha douglas and his eco douglas were fearful but there's really no basis to conclude that germain oliver there's absolutely


potential physical danger to two witnesses and even three you know jermaine it is true that your main all over there was nothing that he's himself specifically was afraid but again mr sutton there's a history of violence here we know


how many employers that have a variant of the chair perhaps i think that it is a haps yes or no well not exactly because presume let's say we take normal chairs if an employer is expanding they may require some checks


him and there's no question in my mind and i've spoken to i've done other investigations in this case that i have not disclosed necessarily because i think their work product materials and i can represent you to quote art that mr gage is in


petitioner although he had knowledge of the predicate facts did not bring the claim the first time around and he had several years he was on notice of these facts from two thousand two thousand and one


submit you want to rule on it now is if we aren't allowed to put in this evidence and you've ruled ok we can't put the evidence in then that's one thing ok but


be superfluous because the report the claim was that reporting violations what mass market manipulation or the accumulation or exercise of market power since seattle had every opportunity to show that directly the commission said why should we add on


apart from their lack of any causal relationship to any harm they suffered were just not substantial violations if there were violations at all so we would certainly put that on if in fact the court to say they should put that on we


that weren't included in the heaviest petition for example the derren sage the witness who could supposedly provide some exculpatory testimony there was no mention of him in the original petition so the court found that that was something brand new improperly


you know emphasize that i don't believe that the necessarily the shock the conscience test of the kind of you louis is applicable will that go if it is that goes back to the first question i think judge callahan asked and that is


adoption of the constitution still carried us i understand your argument then that you you then believe the new constitution moved this case if it doesn't then the problem still is involved


that was not the entire sentence i'm going to read the entire sentence with which he said it should have been there because i was voicing my view and making speeches everywhere that there was a media meeting every time even if there was to like ten people


whether someone was arrested or someone was detained all those are words that can slip around in translation i get that but if he's talking about the speech when he's talking about more specifically under questioning it sounds that wasn't just a statement he's very specific


that the that no reasonable person no reason a fact finder with us on this so even if you enough found the same way even if there are possible explanations that aren't that you know aren't addressed by the board that's not enough this court needs to


is on to the next grade level which would be the one grade at a different school at santa monica high school but it was in the us why from before and it sounds like you consented to sam ohio none of this is


case law says the convenience of the teachers is not paramount it's if it's for the kids ok so that's their obligation but that doesn't that opinion didn't say that the parents have no obligation they


that we could've demanded that the state proceed to trial on a first degree assault wait for the jury to be impaneled and then move to dismiss based on double jeopardy well again


be a double jeopardy violation to run the twelve months concurrent with one hundred two months but this is all that's not part of the record it was an argued by ok we share a bit so i think that maybe he wouldn't have gotten any benefit of this much benefit by putting guilt ok counsel you


nutrition for patients who were not fed and that was clear from the way the indictment laid out the scheme and the charge there were six counts of billing for d m v durable medical equipment and then there was a


charge that as part of the scheme the patients who came to the clinics had physical exams and were administered tests but the six and a vigil counts had to do with the reimbursement to the d m v correct right


have either presided over a review countless transcripts to have a judge in front of a jury say to twice to a lawyer who is performing core functions on behalf of her client i will throw


even if we were to presume that it did in fact cause her to fail to object for those last few moments then there was no structural error and then in a footnote they talked about whether it did in fact cause her


reason consideration your honor it doesn't have to be believed to face value that's not our position at all or asking for is a reason to consideration by an impartial decision maker as to whether this evidence is credible so in this case you would have these affidavits plus


when he filed the paper but he could have gotten that later he got his file in order i mean at some point he got his file but that doesn't mean he had the plea at the time he had to make the decision that's that's correct but the point is that there are other there are other evidence is in the record that


unsuccessful in tracking down mr mirrors to make him pay for the last load her f b i handler notices that she's not driving her normal vehicles and asks her about it she tells the f b i handler that it's because she had


orchestration and i will point out to the court the government could have arrested him ramirez right then and there they had the conspiracy for the marijuana they had the attempt to possess they had what they needed to put him away


fact there is no conscious action so the routine is this they get to south korea they are put in a place called hot on with their very restricted it's basically a reeducation camp they're not allowed to go out they get out after a few months etc


shows us the congress did not intend to create such an exception section three o two a should we start with rio two b which is the operative language well as a statute


think this is a very great question i think you ought to look at the decision of the v a on page two the first paragraph it says right there for instance says to the i j s finding that the respondents of


summary judgment motion got it wrong saying we submitted no evidence when the williams declaration actually did say that no it was intended to limit to those four issues but again i wasn't planning on arguing that point we think the court erred on that and as judge


other adverse claims that intellectual property assets has to find right and it doesn't seem to encompass this it wouldn't compass and because it's the rights to manufacture are there show me where it is well i don't have the whole agreement in front of me


way back in the ninety's who how do you define incidental and incidental has never been defined and clark county has continued to the state does not have a definition of incidental and has licensed dieties as unrestricted


creditors to rule and i'm assuming for the purposes of our discussion here we're going to assume that all the parts are met and we're only talking about whether there is serious doubt a disability and so again when we look at


or if they had to do with cape cod instead of g pod or if they were in a temporal proximity to his assault then i would argue that they would be relevant is much like assent


and either now or in rebuttal if you could just tell us tell me where that was in the excerpts of record we had my staff had trouble locating it all right it would be let me see if i can find it and if you want to do it again you counsel was arguing to not bring your


are you saying she couldn't identify the spot and somebody else did this is this is where she thought that she was responding to but there was nobody to cross examine with respect to where and when he got the coordinates did he get them


didn't protect themselves you know it's ultimately the issue well i don't know if asked ultimately the issue but the trial court did find that neither side particularly distinguished themselves and we then argued sort of a last clear chance


case that was discussed in the baptists ruling which contains the phrase when justice still requires that is to be used according to that case and deciding whether the bam that exists i would suggest that


court has told us and grant that the facts off actors are not to be applied mechanically again that all circumstances should be taken into consideration and it should be an equitable analysis and in fact that the fall factors can be disregarded if the equitable circumstances justify it all right so


not required under franchise holdings but even if the court finds that the district court has to make findings that comported with this extreme circumstances notion that it simply wasn't the case that


it strikes me that as i understand it please correct me if i'm wrong that that is the difference between the court needed rule and that and the rule for consolidating that that's exactly the difference your honor and that's the difference that i think is critical here because cases that have been joined together this is what


forty nine location of the facility i'm sorry what was your what was the record cite seven forty nine the j one yes so point out to me where it says the


always represented that it would not open a casino in phoenix there is nothing in the record that demonstrates that the nation ever made such a representation in fact what the there


authorities on page five of our brief the nation expressly on two different occasions in two different years bringing the landes replacement act to the attention of the state so that the state


oh i think i was clear about this but my co counsel wants me to reiterate that this case is not about and i believe mr shaw greed this case is not about the facility that's the subject of the


stressed because of having children with with some kind of disability or needing some kind of special care or whether or not someone had asked a family member to help them getting the funds to


say that it was recently probable that the outcome of the trial would have been different and if so give me the argument well that's a standard less than a preponderance of the evidence if he contested the state's case


rugs and so in that instance the wrongful conduct itself was trying to prevent import commerce to to make sure that retailers weren't able to actually import oriental rugs from outside the u s and so that's


not that does not assuage the air if there if the court agrees that there's there and the reason is that it becomes a regress i guess in this case of progress if constructive intent is used to find defendant guilty of conspiracy to murder harris's


client's case but the mere fact that the court was able to look at the same facts and find instance for instance if the facts were there man is walking down the street and there's a fire and then he starts running and in one case the court rules that because


all right the place to begin is almost five months before this complaint was filed on november seventeenth of two thousand and four b w g sent a letter to monitor


for re read of evidence and to examine the evidence during the deliberations third the jury did not convict on every count where the victim herself said there had been a crime there were the counts involving sodomy


which in a client's mind triggers that either something is automatic or it's going to happen in my case where you're short of the mark questionnaires


and how the reasons are stated if it's very clear from the reasons what you know perhaps what that finding is that he just forgot to put in the sentence i therefore find she's not credible but he's just given six reasons


decide however i'm not the question here is whether or not the exemption and i want to get into that the issue of the exemption says you have to both not believe in in public insurance or in private insurance in the


again for not being able to pay for a lawyer i agree that a lot of the clients you're going to see sophisticated business folks like each se they find out they made a mistake they can have something filed right away in this case were on the record and the only record


letter carrier in chicago the cadillac from fairly early cases a cadillac you know one of the windows in this courtroom looking outside some of the other courtrooms do and they're probably cadillacs driving by right now the cadillac driving down seventh street or driving down


that took place in this case took place at the entrance to the building yes your honor now is the entrance once you enter the front doors the first thing as it is in this this building the first thing you encounter is the nominee or an extra machine to put your belongings and it was there that


it's not like these people were by themselves for the twelve hours prior to this time they were actually socially together with other people since four in the afternoon and had just left someone's apartment by the park there are other people when williams was the


and so if you start the playing field with respect to the terminations partnership items now well what do we do then with i mean i understand partnership items have to have religious context when you're talking about a partnership


stampede credit case in our briefs validated the recovery of the repayment of water as a remedy for the unlawful diversion of water so this is the whole their whole


because this is a very broad grievance procedure in the district council sixteen agreement which we said should be enforced under the out of area clause even the question of the interpretation of section one the question of


workers who also work for being gay in texas and said wait a minute you're out here working and this is a violation of the out of area cost because you should be paid according to either our green or the texas


that federal statutory scheme and attempts to create a five hundred foot level let's say from the ground up creating an absolute property right to the extent that interferes with the navigable airspace of the united


we thought were meritorious arguments even though there was a chance they might lose because we wanted to give the best possible representation to class and that's what we did and that's what this court said in the petroleum products case back and say well one argument one one argument lost and therefore we can


saying you may take are the our product and you may then add to it but only because you have the bitstream out what the quote logic product which would then make the closed logic product and only then


of the products that were at issue in this case the three thousand series for clear logic and the seven thousand series the bitstream information and the use of masks had already been initiated prior to st paul's policy going


grossly unfair for arizona to claim to have relied on the single memorandum when it's surrounded by other memoranda that make clear the secretary's decision and frankly to be fair even that nine hundred ninety seven memorandum on


rules and paid entirely for referred services even when the state was responsible i don't think that's a responsible supposition for him or for this court to make i think the logical inference is that the indian health service had a payer of last resort


allow the pastors group to use the meeting room because the librarian determined that they were engaging in religious services in violation of the policy correct well that was the initial rejection or the


community culture or educational issues clearly and they've not disputed that wasn't what ms hawkins of faith center good falls within that that you know those broad topics in fact it's difficult to imagine a broader array of


policy but you agree don't you that at some point some official from contra costa county whether it's the librarian or the chairman of the board of supervisors hast of make a decision as to whether or not the activity


taser international since the tories case the third incident and the only thing tally has now implemented into their training which they require don't ever put the m twenty six taser on the strong hand side because


thinking she was clearly thinking and there's no evidence otherwise that she was thinking she was going for her or her case or the issue of the holster whether or not the garrett could have gotten a different holster or whatever when it was recommended that's


out based on certain rates of interest based on assumptions about how he would fund them in addition it had a toll free number he could call that number at any time to say hey what's in the account or as a judge what's your sense you could simply wait for the past to notice knowing that he would have


parole board determination that's that's that's the issue yes your honor now what the district court did with make as a threshold issue accepting the fact that there was no evidence to support the parole authorities determination


didn't follow that myself and i'll be the first to admit that that's a good and now we've we've talked about you for reasons he used now one reason he didn't talk about and i'm not blaming you for this you're up here you're not down in ecuador yes or but


search and seizure and eviction of all these people that was it it was a very severely limited proceeding and we knew from the once we commenced we couldn't bring any of our claims in that proceeding we had to


purchase is the property michael jernigan in the deed transferring the property to janick is recorded in the pima county recorder's office on march thirty one two thousand and three is that correct


do some things but everything that he did was basically on the defense to the state's case the state at trial he told the court that he would be presenting some witnesses the state finished their side of the story and he stood up and


read your opening brief basically just say that you always have to have a vocational expert and by the time we got to the reply brief there there can be instances where you don't have to have one is that correct that's correct all right so maybe i'm just from


the doctors who said there's nothing wrong with you you can do light work and all the doctors said no you can't go back to your work as a heavy equipment operator and a truck driver but you can do a lighter type work and let's get you to vocational


talking about part of you know jews job is a matter of judgment a matter of efficiency of moving his stock in determining which cases merited which cases do not and contrary to counsel its argument there is no bright line


to straight lying in the point of an eye on paper lumber didn't move same stacks everything was the same ledger cards for the accounts didn't change and the security agreements provide for security interest all


or even two or three years in after only small instalments at their prices are kind of high because this is how people buy furniture from them what they what


the fence is first of all but he was able to present a defense at trial his defense of trial was that he never had sexual relations with his niece at all and that she was lying he was able to present that testimony that


prior lawsuits and the second to look at the evidence to weigh the evidence and to resolve any factual disputes that may exist providing the jurisdictional issue is separable from the merits of the case which it is in this case the jurisdictional


understand the vast under the reasonable expectations doctrine even if the subsequent insurance policy is on ambiguous if a situation has been created by the insurer that mislead the


congress has chosen to prohibit an act which i why he has chosen not to prohibit there is no conflict between the federal law and the state law on the same thing can be said here there is no conflict the federal law says you can't


law should be classified there are state laws that put drugs on different schedules than the than the federal schedule and all of that doesn't create any contradiction or inconsistency in the state laws applied by the


that rule and that's found in oak oro and a core of says that it is a final judgment as to the reason there is no subject matter jurisdiction so in this case the court found there is no private right of action meaning that a citizen


whether it is probably a manifestation of her psychiatric illness in that occasion that she might be taking for her psychiatric illness that's just our eyes can cause diarrhea in a dominant pain i grant this is not the world's best written sentence but i had read it verbatim


that's his conclusion in other words he felt that her irritable bowel syndrome may have been caused by the medication that she was taking for her depression and that he concluded that she can return to work but she would have to be given


that i think is causing great problems below and it's causing confusion as to the accountability and this point about the labs is really what the fan that tries to arrest this head on in this case and that


pier and eventually the victim was struck by the hole now in the act case there's no way that the defendants could have known that a whole lot about her been used yet this court found them guilty and currently responsible for assault with a deadly


this this common design and i mean it again it's very fact specific item state makes it sound like you know now an act common design has no teeth now because the phillips i don't think that's the case common design still exists however under the facts of philips


entity to determine whether or not they are a public body for purposes of for you you would have to look at their example the state's attorney to see what function are they performing in that particular time how and under what circumstances was that record


well the first yes it does and i think it should of the first question though has to be asked is whether or not the freedom of information act applies to that particular public body if it does then the disclosure of records should be looked at to the schools in favor of public policy


act exists for us to be able to find injustices that are to ensure that there is no injustice that occurred off the record and to in to allow indigent people to bring these things to the court's


modifier without fear or compensation and particularly what is most striking is if we look at seven three five or seven four five i also yes forty nine slash thirty five and forty nine


and i believe that the sister court in the when the first district was looking at the case the sister court of the second district had already spoken on the subject and the quarter elected to follow the decision in hensley and i believe that if you look carefully at the


not volunteer if the statute is unambiguous the statute as a whole is clear that someone who is paid for his services is not a volunteer and is not immunize immunized and either way dr murphy is not


term sexual solve and sexual molestation of a child in the third or demonstrated propensities element in defining criminal sorry sorry i'm defining sexual assault in the act the


they haven't said anything about they got up they spent a half an hour this morning talking about the regulation the fate was the regulation in your reading going on because i'm not going to i'm not going to be accused of that but the last sentence it actually concha way to the point because it


mr easily prevailed below the general assembly has created a policy of notice to give defendants a right to notice and a chance to make intelligent decisions throughout proceedings the censure is clear and what it requires


the state doesn't know the trial judge is asking questions the state is saying well i think you should get class x defense counsel says no i'm class x somebody says class to the states as well at least class three we're talking about the very last day that this guy's


argued that this is not something that's subject to prejudice that prejudice is not required here because this is placed a burden on the state it is talk in the language of rights in title months for the defense and that you know this is something that the state is


to support threatening or here's the evidence to support suffering and i would point out that there was one question only asked about suffering and the doctor gave an opinion that well based upon something that happened a year ago i would say she's suffering


the reason why the primary argument that i'm presenting in this case is in regards to the collateral consequences exceptions of the move in a sack and is because from our perspective it does seem to be the violence to use your term your honor to be doing


sooner the dram shop act against the defendant appellate ghani a mary who i am privileged to represent at the request of the yellow no insurance guarantee fund because mr merry's liquor liability insurer


funds obligation that is indeed the million dollar question and that anyone who says i can answer that anyone who says that it's defined anywhere is incorrect it is not to find the funds obligation


member board is comprised of four members appointed by the mayor and four members who are elected by police officers so in this circumstance unlike other provisions and other sections or articles in the code you have a


violation from the board with not strictly complying with two to seven by by continuing to make payments right that we're not focusing on their decision that's not an element of our claim if they never acted our claim would exist within the circuit court's jurisdiction


five b even if we are each net the initial definition of public utility in section three one of five days and we don't think they do because


the procedures that are already in place here he did not know all of the problem with his case until all of the timeline said he would be in a different position i think if the timeline to file of


they were able to retrace her steps in that manner but that's a highly significant piece of evidence because what of what is the universe of people that's going to know about this isolated location


that there was contamination in this case there's no evidence of them well it is true that there's no specific evidence of contamination in this case however there is a pretty clear indication in the record and is in the common law page twenty two


example here swear that the issue was a warrant check isn't there some distinction between the police officer going to a computer and looking into a computer and trying to find out what information is and the officer engaging in this conversation and


only answer that matters for the criminal driving while suspended statute the statute prohibits driving quote at the time and quote that one's license is suspended october


that the dealt with and all that but this let's just take a look at the ward were sent me in the legislature this i have been fortunate of been around since the seventy's


contractors turned in in the contract that both parties agreed if there wasn't some sort of agreement that the contract is somewhere about well the only involvement that they would be involved but only that


the that there are cases where a facial challenge is brought and and the court decides to grant has applied really and then because of the way it was presented where they changed the the construction of the statute


repair common elements properly and of these issues to answer justice remus question if these issues aren't walk quickly and in a forcible entry into turner action what's the alternative for the unit owner the


thank you your honor may please the court time assistant attorney general eric levin on behalf of the people of the state of illinois i hope not to unduly repeat what the court just heard in fifteen minutes a fine argument from both of my colleagues i think i'm actually in a good situation here because i'd like to


abroad that it fails to define in any way shape or form what a reasonable expectation is or to limit reasonable expectation of privacy that it just reaches too far in order to accomplish one goal


gamesmanship providing respondent parents an incentive not to object to the lack of noticed during the trial court proceedings in order to reserve a winning argument erkki all the legislature could not have intended that this


that manner they might because the trial court gave a six year term and didn't know the five year paul term was going to attach that's not the case here here the trial we have every reason to believe in fact there's a presumption that the trial court knew that the three year


abide i think that's true as a general matter that the state can waive a timeliness challenge to section two fourteen i want attention again here i think there's a distinction in that the trial court affirmed there was no state response in the trial and the


should not decide that issue our position is clear i think as to what the meaning of the pension clause has always been but we don't want to take a position nor do we want the court to would to adjudicate claims that are not really before an adversarial basis


st louis is elected all the error that the caller county winnebago is farther removed and these i mean this court looks at the map there is a difference in the way this county looks compared to the other it just doesn't have the number of rows it doesn't have


predictability would be completely stripped away if this court allows idea of p r to revoke doctor to fire his license not only that it would interfere with what this court has recognized and establish not only in m


long and he had to come out and say in order to avoid looking like it's a guy's but that seems to be the intent of that final letter but those letters you know they are one side


took a lot of those letters with a grain of salt but the final letter does refer and it refers to the work guys which is what i am i found even though it was several years later and that shows that i am raf