if you would the argument that you're posing counsel spent most of his time on this morning which is he parking if you will of the attributes or of the rules


encryption dictionary is not a label so at that point we in no way declined the district court suggestion that she hear argument on the terms selecting and consider it as a potentially dispositive issue we accepted that as a potential


should come in terms of the apprehension of liability because now the infile that they're going to know are gas that you're infringing in turnaround of that can't be one of the components we consider no we'll just print so i think one


this was a messy claim but that's different it was a method of detecting and inherent trait this isn't a method of detecting anything about their survivability in in frozen it's a method of actually freezing them and then having a group of usable


so just just to elaborate on the on the step two point i think even if we somehow work to song step one we don't think we do for the reasons we've discussed but but step two requires only something that's not


teaching the way the dog rangi reference in particular is very clear that that investigator was investigating the side effects of the commercially recommended ten milligram dose


honor but the absolute point is if it was made this the rub is if it's consistent with an additional article that is something the corresponds to the additional article if it's consistent with something that is more acceptable like a flutter it's trying to differentiate


confusion at this cases particularly you could have come confusion with trademarks you could even have confusion with registered trademark confusion about geographic origin why i mean maybe i'm just missing something so tell me the government


that answer your question let me just try once more and i think so for six says we have a standard if you use a geo a particular kind of geographic set of words usa united states whatever if there is a real


artificial they may not you may not be using it in a way which communicates that consumers will view it as a supplier origin identifier as opposed to a geographic identifier the fact that you or you have used it which is a requirement for registration right


and or be just one so it could be just once so and in this instance for those goods that came and after the application date of jay bilas mentioned that his close proximity was deemed ok if it was just a made in china label inside the


in the paragraph where the number of budget is zero zero six that it's taking away the damage layer you know there's no discussion in office


that these agents can


our first to address the issue of if this court finds that figure too isn't it was improperly excluded from the board's construction that and necessarily a broader construction should have been applied that at minimum entitles


notice with the district court that the case settled and asked for a thirty day tension of time for all the pending deadlines giving our climax time to time to make its payments the settlement agreement clearly states and we had thirty days to make paper that was our


code that runs on those accused products in their possession they had documents that describe the use of the fat thirty two file system and the accused products they had depositions of witnesses who were designated as thirty six


that they did end up in the us if that were true wouldn't it a hole the many need for actual evidence in iran or my it's a totality of circumstances argument let me just add to that the argument is that not only were they


they didn't i'm pretty sure apple said that they don't require place any requirements on


technology it's coming on line now and it's one that we believe we rightfully own and own to the exclusion of the other party involved here to


list of documents in response to a query as to display that information to the person making the query well familiar with how searching works and in any type of electronic library you enter a period you get search results


forty and fifty percent so you can see the one hundred forty four is barely discernible there all the way over on the bottom right hand corner there's one other transaction about forty to fifty percent of that of course is well below the seventy five point three six percent


he decided not to and that that is not error on this record can i to take you to another small issue that your friend did not raise but it's raised elsewhere which is there seems to have been arguably a burden shifting thing going on here and


even necessary here are all that's necessary here your honor even before we get to the specification is the simple absence of the disclosure of an inventive concept under alice once the petitioners raise the section one


don't cite any aspect of the invention then don't make clear whether it's the abstract idea that's novel or whether it's the computer implementation that earned all of this praise because no element of the invention is identify the account there can't be a nexus to nothing


it first of all nothing my friends have said takes away from the error of the first definition of abstract idea of i'm happy that they at least would agree to the second definition but that second definition


here i don't see how a non final order such as a new trial or gets dragged along by twelve might be to see how and finally back to the on our appeal on the display of voltage counsel


i mean you have a little bit of a problem here i'm not sure why there was no argument on this but you've got a claim differentiation problem when original claim nine incorporated original claim one right and then dependent from claim one are claims two three four five


provided for and what intellectual property as opposed to just like technical information or technical advice to provide technical information for the able them to redesign the entire sync so that no intellectual property


should mean permanently isolating but in its briefing expressively stated that it agreed with the district court's construction and then submitted five additional pages of briefing arguing about how that construction should be applied this court said that because it's all they had agreed to the


a complete similarity matrix which consists of again using fox's term pairwise similarity values so all that means is the system is twenty one documents that it wants to claim calls for selecting a node from


filing is an ambiguous concept and the patenting is an ambiguous concept in p t o as reasonably understood that in those circumstances when you file a continuing obligation on the same day as pattern issuance then in fact the filing happens before the


and in fact you know again the statute expressly for first application dates and to me that means you've got to compare apples apples and and remember i think what's going on here is emergence trying to have its cake and eat it too you either have a patent or you have an application and once you have your


that's also harboring and you see right that he well what i can say is that there are some ambiguity in the record as to what he was representing there the did he have an obligation to list his prior inventions


court one of the board to narrow that construction in the way they wanted the court to narrow it was inconsistent with the examples in the specification so i think it was correct for the board to stick with their original construction


the board or call them on it and the quote is it's a joint appendix six twenty but to a certain extent the art that's being relied upon is all sequencing by synthesis i think so to a certain extent that's kind of the environment that we're working


that if that's what the board was really looking at that kind of expectation of success i don't know that the board ever got there and i think that as i said i think it's a fair reading of what the board was trying to do to say you said you combine them for purposes of


collates containers based on an organization scheme that accounts for identifying information of the container such as a patient name or a prescription number it doesn't say the patient specific identifying information it just says


district court i think it's an open question whether the preamble is limiting but i don't think ultimately it has to be to still distinguish claim one from four five five


and fortune again nothing that bridgeport's that hamilton for example would would have disclosed again because it wouldn't have worked and it's interesting that bridgeport now is throwing out this new modification that they actually spent a


man of arlington shows the entire end up biting the shoulder no part of the end does not about the shoulder and it seem like that's the direction they went in when they said look at the end


described i believe it is accurate that from my reading of the record that he never went that extra step that saying for example that even there are stability problems i now recognize that one could adjust


perpendicular to the plate it's perpendicular here it's perpendicular here the issue here is that the board without making any construction of its own simply said


like a prosecution make the examiner put forth their findings as to what was in the are the burden then shifted to the data known or to point out the errors in the examiner in the examiner's


arrest until ultimately when he's hospitalized is that whatever happened there he remembers some of it but he doesn't remember a lot of it and i think that when he testified that he that that didn't happen and in fact the agent said that it did happen i don't think that candidly i don't think it was


given the plain language of the documents that this was a genuine marriage that they lived together as husband and wife for six years until they divorced where is the fraud i would just if i could follow through with my example because the whole life where's


did their work but might but might enhance the description of the work that they were doing in order to make make themselves


for public credit against the dangers that would be visited on the american university of beirut should your client be publicly revealed and there was a basis for the judge to reach those the conclusion that the ceiling


very well could have and perhaps should have included in that plea agreement but if they had they wouldn't have gotten this on it's a nature of a plea agreement right each side gives up something yes so they gave up that even though they had full knowledge of


citation to camille which is a summary order case and that is local rule thirty two point one point one says summary workers are not precedent they are allowed to be cited and then we look to the cases that are in the cited in


the treating physician opined that mr flynn met the listing requirements he does not have to meet the listing requirement to be found to say he can be found disabled a step in the l j gave dr l


weighing different experts analyses on class action under a preponderance standard where you have conflicts and i'm focusing on the question of can this analysis be run in the


to progressive discipline or eventually terminations there were no issues with employment that an issues with her employment or performance or even renewing a visa up until she made her all complaint to mrs bishop


you would say that we need to take we need to address the ownership question and the standing question or whatever you are you want to phrase it but why isn't that just then you're asking us for an advisory


been the rights holder are factual issues which the court did not get into on summary judgment the court relied on a single fact that there was a preexisting registration and said it was


respectfully i disagree the judge will for did not do this in her oral presentation from the bench and what i call judge will first kind of wrap up paragraph of her sentencing which is it page is a ninety five to ninety


eighty eight i'm not going to apply any future rule and in fact they said the exact opposite their consistent position has always been until it wasn't whatever happens in from or


that if plaintiff and i had there's not a single evidence that this was discriminatory biased racially motivated or retaliatory for any protected activity that occurred before and


seed that under the circumstances but that would also have to do with the lighting when to certain degree you know the whole purpose but the problem is that if they thought if they could reasonably believe that


you know whatever questions there may be about how to come up with a generic offense in sort of on the borders and i think that manslaughter is sort of one of these different difficult cases i think it's much


ok and that's just based on all sorts of false assumptions about you know we don't know what kind of laws are out there whether they're divisible were not in harbin i think this court pointed out that it's only this particular new york law criminal sale in the fifth that had this


eyewitness identifications and so he didn't pass it on what we have here is no evidence of an intentional withholding of of material that the reid own knew to be in


reader fabricated on the arrest worksheet instead of listing side greens actual height he listed his height as five foot five if you then consider that detecting the reed oh conveniently dismisses lenny best as someone who was identified as a


to the subject trust that he would pay it and most importantly that if he didn't he would waive all defenses including that of standing he did not pay that he'd been moved to vacate both the foreclosure judgment and that settlement agreement that was denied in that


and ability for the the immigrant to challenge the evidence against we admit your honor that opportunities were given to our client below however we assert that because of his incarceration at the beginning of the


cancellation proceedings he was at a procedural disadvantage from the very beginning the government argues it's brief that we've waived many of our evidentiary arguments we've waived those able to entry arguments because they were not properly joined at the beginning


statutory criteria and you're put in removal proceedings you can prove that you are a citizen and you can't be removed correct that is correct as livingston so i guess i'm i still am under it if there is a material issue a fact that's raised


p a requires arbitration for an employer who's challenging withdraw liability right so why isn't that where you ought to be first and then if it turns out that you have withdrawal liability then you can try to


is that the court could very well have you know flat out approached it methodologically in the way that you are arguing with respect to two


substantially the amount of information the government learned about mr burnham and his company was enormous he has been very effective at perpetrating this fraud for many years and to outward


including including the fact that he characterized his fourteenth letter as not a request for mr nicholson to send money but he characterized it as a statement by him that that mr that i'm


i understand what you're saying but i think that for him my position is that that does the same thing that the government is doing which is blame the defense is about blame defense counsel for not


that's the first piece of critical evidence about the video the second piece is the f b i actually sent one of their expert cell site technicians out to drive the unique path that the murder ran in the video


those states there's a very good explanation for why she held that information back she was part of the debt collection efforts the debt collection efforts that led to this murder and she also told the police that jason rivera was no longer a


that immediately and there was never anything that he said was not truthful and the eastern district of new york did not give him a cooperation for that reason but in addition he was severely punished of the things he told the eastern district


he started treating him wasn't it was a primary treating for a long time and fang started treating i think in two thousand and thirteen but it all relates to some portion of the period and when you bring a case sure you know the judge has to


for only one of them to be treated as preempted rather than all three that is correct your honor that is correct you judge on them are you also raise you out so ask about what about the hold part well if you look at the post and hold there's


honor i think to analyze a statue you can do that but to accept as fact that the price is the same in every retail store in connecticut is not a facial challenge and that would be that's factual as applied challenge


statute he forever is tying the two together so unless you buy into bundling and the only case that he can cite that has done that is his own case in maryland then you cannot go down that


sort of an eighty million dollars penalty and then suddenly there are three eighty million dollars penalties there are lots of arguments that you haven't you made those arguments about whether that is a sensible penalty to impose yes or no but it doesn't seem to me that it's in


of new york's numbers and they've never disputed that and they never told us how they got those numbers and we keep saying we can't replicate these numbers and the hallmarks of scientific evidence and this is you know scientific evidence the agreement numbers out of a huge dataset requires something


before the court today this case has dramatic real world implications for my client kipp academy a very high performing charter school in the south bronx formed in two thousand pursuant to new york's charter school act to better serve on the privileged school children kipp


this matter is because the people who founded the school and who operate the school are private actors they haven't they're not a political subdivision of the state there's nothing in hyde that speaks to whether a conversion school matters frankly it was


the other point and i know to say that we had a full and fair opportunity to litigate on its when we showed up at core and it is in essence the next party proceeding you're required to give a phone call to your adversary


real reason why somebody got might my client was in the hospital i couldn't locate him this chronic illness something that you could say ok i'm going to have a reasonable excuse as to why this matter sat it two years and nothing has been done


it's premature for us to address that again because it's qualified immunity it i don't think it's premature and again even if dr eastwood did say that it let's say we could speculate that dr yes would grab geiger x men and levy are binding and


new information from the second department decision and we asked to raise it and if that it and again i would submit to you that judge ramos did decide it he didn't just say well you know i'm not going to he actually rode on it


deutsche bank testified that they wanted the original regionals to comply with the terms of the letter of credit and he testified at joint appendix four eighteen


yes as far as the topic of restitution we think judge paul got it correct on restitution the banks did lose money the loss was passed on to the u s d a and the u s d a guaranteed


happened years later that's not what i understand writing royalty interest to be they're not paying one hundred percent for production they're paying for a right to proceed right that is correctly just different correct they're not purchasing hydrocarbons or purchasing a right to proceeds in the future


within thirty days i think it should be longer than that and the company made it clear that they needed him to acknowledge his agreement to retrain within the requisite time the requisite time period then he then he came back and said well


yes for two reasons first the district court applied the wrong legal standard for determining the patrol residence the district court failed to conduct yet speak up and i'm sorry


ongoing discussion and throughout their divorce negotiations in while they were impaired why they were always premised on the conclusion that miss philips and the child would be getting an apartment somewhere in the u s because her


tried to explain this discrepancy the fact that the child was not even present in paris why in september two thousand and fifteen difficulty though is these these discrepancies both people were very unstable but the district court was pretty pronounced in


of cases where we found a lack of evidence to support constructive possession are any of those cases in which it was clear that the defendant knew about some of the firearms in the house with the at the court concluded there was a steal


should had a jury trial been who would vacate this regardless it so i wanted to ask about this issue whether it's equitable or legal even if quote contract rescission would be viewed as accurate about which i think it is


noticed and discussed the inadequate of building codes with dr time and with respect to the billing on the chiropractic treatment the failure to have one on one


conflated various problems property rights and the children's cartoon shown with sponge bob doesn't doesn't this really all come down to the issue of source identification yes and schaefer yes that's exactly what it comes down to


losses what about when people act in concert with one another whether they're charged with a conspiracy or separate way or maybe even one of them isn't charged at all what about when people act in concert with each other which as


threshold the court is bound to decline to reach the merits for two independent reasons the first reason is that the court needs to abstain from exercising jurisdiction and we


additional orders would blow a massive hole in the protections offered by section one hundred eighty three not surprisingly county offers no authority no case in which that argument has been accepted in fact no argument to our knowledge which it has even been may the last thing i want to say your honour's


said that a class action can be waived here and which is inappropriate as well especially if if we are supposed to be an arbitration which clearly we argue we are not then that would be an issue for the arbitrator did sudden here the district court also and for that to say that a class


else because he has a bonding arbitration agreement and it has a class waiver and the courts properly enforced a class waiver getting past the issue of having addressed the though gobion the issue yet ok there were two cases


all the courts should have done was say the delegation cause is valid and all these challenges they make may come to the arbitrator however your honor because the district court addressed it i think we think it's appropriate and it's not unusual in court appeals cases


you have to use these apps like and so as far as we know from what has been presented so far you have to click on this and it's taken really like you either click on this or you can't get the app isn't going to work for you and you're not going to get


much different animal than the claim that we've been going over related to cover so alternative numbers to be the is an actual provision under the contract where musket says that suncor failed to pay these two fifty dollars per barrel fees


to be delivering under the contract to expand the terminal or damages or that we expanded in didn't get the oil but again if i can bring the court to the actual ruling that's before you today the ruling on the counter claim is that first


narrowly that's not exactly correct when the court referenced i were more restrictive meaning it was more restrictive than washington the washington state supreme court's meaning which said this representative payee process which is


we have to go with it counsel do you agree on remember if you agreed with us or not do you agree that the people in this case who actually made the threats do not have authority under the scheme as it existed them to actually bring


on this point the history of attorney immunity in texas the balancing of policy interests and the administer ability of the immunity doctrine all argue in favor of limiting attorney immunity to conduct in


remuneration that was other than legal fees no hidden equity interests none of the fact patterns in cases like pool where a lawyer committed conduct that went outside the role of being a lawyer so as i think


think i can answer or try to answer your honor's question about enron which is where you had an exchange traded stock and because it was an exchange traded stock in the litigation on those issues had to be in federal court under the thirty four act


that lawyers would have on the theory that they disinterested lea represent their client only until their client crosses the line well your honor i wouldn't disagree i would say though that is something for the texas bar the texas


the equation and they would have to divide the excess insurer but they would have to divide the other insurance decide which is access which is primary as they did in the us are case around which is excess which is primary and then it would still go up


opportunity to participate but they did they stood on the sidelines and didn't do nothing and now they claim that they just didn't have an opportunity this is one of those one other issues i mean the the district court also had several statements in its


where do we put this case on the spectrum or yardstick some of the of of force cases is it one of those where we can tell the officers and there's a big swath of the


not all of the withheld payments are considered trust fund payments so the the the bulk of that we will never recover it's just impossible the statute gives us the right to go after some of the monies that are not paid over but not all of


that her testimony would be unchallenged when you consider the fact that lead helpers testified consistently to her story when you consider the documents that were energy used at evidence and with those documents were


nobody had that opportunity because you threw the case out with prejudice well you could file a motion to do that or you could file a motion to dismiss given the government's repeated misconduct they repeat a faucet the produce any authority for that where a judge would dismiss a


it's just you know you have a new teacher she doesn't know where this child this is functioning academically and so did what she should do which is


answering it at the present time but i'm wondering if you're representing dixon for purposes of the twenty dollars to fifty five dollars and if not which he filed it pros say it does not amount to


in other words before five hundred and ninety nine came out was it wouldn't not have been the defendant's contention that double counting was taking place i think it was mr dickson's contention that double counting was taking place before and this was addressed in the percents investigation


were court appointed and the court is very grateful for your assistance


that initially that the money given to montgomery was to bring the patients there the problem with this inferred expected judgments instruction is that the jury can take that instruction apply


three but i want your best one for best one first the law go a premises liability yes or ok but this incident occurs in the parking lot on the wal mart premises and it occurs in all on


under texas law vendors just do not seem to have a duty to observe the purchaser and if that's as solid a bright line rule then there wouldn't be an alkie call type duty writes up we assert that's not a bright line there's a


of each individual employee that had interaction with the deceased and a description of what that interaction is as it described the time


and almost all of the challenge histories and the district court looked carefully at that one election and election results and the election of african american preferred candidates weighed in the totality of the circumstances and


only issue before you and the only issue that he even arguably preserved was whether the c p a applies in federal court i will admit that in his first response which he called an objection then was not an opposition or right it was called


they would apply to federal claims in texas state courts that would mean that all of a sudden any federal claim brought in a court of general jurisdiction within texas would be subject to the t c p yet i've


this i'm reminded of them something my mentor branch gilmore told me he told me when i was studying with him that when he had said when when charlie black and i started writing the law that will be no one knew less


i'm not actually suggesting that i think that result in texas and oklahoma in the other all the gas states would be the same i think that you know is it in these large these only gas bankruptcies to the middle east don't go through an assumption or a rejection process in and they're considered the operator


mortgage i thought the louisiana law was a little unclear on if you didn't specifically say anything but it was much clearer if it explicitly said consideration is sufficient and complete i'd write those are your


every month which is typically not disclosed in the public records third parties are in fact bound by that so with respect to the inquiry notice when it comes to leases the wall of registry


he was doing so you're successful with this criminal prosecution because of the different standards to be applied here i guess and then you get a conviction and you think it's important to have that conviction because of the fact that he would be prohibited from carrying a


years as a police officer and was a court security officer at the court where the federal judges are so he may have already permission to have a weapon is what you say he may be lawfully entitled to have a weapon if not for the


attempted to remedy it by coming up with you think that second i e p is insufficient so it seems to me you're attacking the new i p and should have the burden of proof well ok to some extent i would agree with you


circumstances how how can we have can you argue that the school didn't attempt to allow her to provide input into it well that's correct your honor i will agree that there is an exception and idea that an ip team can proceed


of discretion review that's correct it is an abuse of discretion review or any one of the many issues that you presented in front of us and i got that there were five


approval what the approval does is it demarcates clearly under williamson and under norco what the extent of the possible taking is until there was a final


shows that there is an overlap between dr goldens medical practice and that of c e p such that that the agreement in operation is not a restraint of a substantial character


understand that argument but when you say that there was no evidence and you took the deposition did you just believe his mother when she said he was on medications he'd been turning point has been counseling and treatment then why didn't they designate her


are right but they're not that close because they are not now twenty two hours or more they're offered much more out of cell time and it's been like that that nothing has changed there was always a separate classification that they were in they were offered and eligible for


orders knows who to respond to zero for the state well that i guess the question i would have is it seems to me that in the supreme court city of west covina vs perkins that they have already


possibly have done it oh my point your honor was that they couldn't have done it without receiving consideration they received no payment and there's no indication in the record that they received payment for any of these categories of items we've discussed invoices that were not factored into baby but which h c l refused to pay


there for the district court the district court won through a very well reasoned and step by step analysis in its opinion and that's why we're here today to ask this court that the district court be affirmed in all regards as


conditions you confirm you will not accept payments in connection with the following businesses or act business activities twenty eight bankruptcy attorneys now that's exactly what mr white does so


he has no intention of doing that all he does is bankruptcy law representing creditors that's all he wanted for and it's very useful sort of something like that you know he's got a small to me and practice and occasionally


you suffer discrimination here we're saying sure come on in sign up use it use our service he's saying oh i don't want to use it never mind i'm leaving he backs out he goes no statutory just like oh into a let's say a bar a


window come on in and sign up for square no bankruptcy attorneys all right now if mr y goes to that store what's he supposed to go go in anyway and force


back with a new theory and said oh instead of negligence we're going to plead a federal case for non delegate pool duty and the supreme court said that's just another way of proving the same issue you were trying before judy is just a means to prove negligence


the deeds of trust real property security were still in play at that time so an action on the guarantee would have been prevented by nevada's one action will so that set forth in the record of paid sixty six where the state court out identifies what precisely was where the claims that were at issue


so i think that goes to the at least to the operation if not a little more extensive the ownership and the p a certainly is has chosen exercises unfortunate as question here in a way that was most efficient by going after the manufacturers rather than


any of the forty four states that was there claims on behalf of consumers at the same time the settlement was entered into and that included the state of virginia so so what happened so when somebody comes in for their annual smog check in


were there their rights against folks wagon have been released and that's not right for them to be exposed to to you know a legal liability when their rights have been released against folks like because it's both wagon that's


footprint of the checkpoint so where they had they were stopping cars inspecting them putting them off to the side continued to be a public forum is am i reading that correctly that that ad had been withdrawn for these


broad and the suggestion is that there's a disputed issue on that and your argument as i understood it was well the ropes just went out the area that was already demarcated as being a


our fees fifty to seventy five percent as to certain categories while this court has permitted that approach it does require that the district court provide a clear and concise explanation tied to the record both for why the cut was made and for why the percentage


a county what is maricopa county asking for it's not asking to administer this agreement it's not asking to change the price list it's not asking to change the list of goods it can be bought it's asking for it's right under those two clauses it's entitle to the same


case no one is from the state of nevada if there's depositions it will be in whatever state they are from not even the subpoena powers can bring forward those witnesses that are alleged in the complaint


because they there was there was a conflict as to where he was actually living at and whether or not he and i'm talking about the probation officer actually had proper authority to go over to this nine attica street and search


else i'm guessing that it's all the other reliant sales of sirius in other parts of the country billings you made some mention earlier on even if we don't apply copper world we should reverse because the c e


it on the cash market in the moment and none of the purchases that are at issue in error case arose out of an imax contract so under your interview i understand it then what you're saying


was in prison some impostor forged a deed of trust to the banks that purportedly gave them title but didn't if they forged mr one signature he always had title


the so there was a form that was attached right there was a written a written form that was attached to the written written counteroffer yes ok and i


money in costa rica in the value of the gold ever come back so that money in coastal rica the defendant claimed as a theft last he asserted that the lawyer who helped him set up the coast rican


what we can glean from the record we have and he was prepared and he was sitting there thinking he was going to testify and counsel decided not to call no counsel


do that usually they do that because they've got a strong case their governor the government's case of the state's case is weak and will only get better with time and they were wearing wayne these these these potentiality


go next door and shoot them and again i think that we do have to think about thirty the circumstances of a missing person's report and the heightened emotions that might be following them but we don't think that objectively a missing person's report justifies an


else here we have the district court the sequence of his comments really was right after that he didn't talk to the probation officer after saying the concerns he didn't talk to the probation


permission all the time people would tell me on the phone that they would like me to send them fax ads you know so given that it's their burden of proof to prove the prior express permission defense were urging the court to hold is


and submit the joint report and proposed schedule in the in the courts boilerplate he states that that particular court had a strict policy of not allowing any more than two years from the initiation of the


notes or actual default by not giving us these supplemental payments that you should have made us when things went south keep in mind your honor there were only two questions of default in the pretrial order that were tried one is whether they defaulted and payments under


policy were paid for by c h s the holding company of the clinic well why why is that the practice of the hospital not to provide b insurance


question and that's pretty clear from the jurisprudence that there needs to be probable cause that the person if there's a suspect things are supposed to be found at their home that there needs to be a base a basis in fact counsel believes it is their cases that i can think of that i have


magistrate did was was look at officer gregory's statement which is a conclusion and the government agrees on that they look at the statement this is where the defendant resides currently residing or he's residing at this location and he has done and just is maybe trusting the officer but


lindsey moves out of the home with her daughter and we don't know what the grandfather is talking about in this case is the relationship what he wants to tell the story of his daughter's relationship but the but the but the affidavit and the affidavit has an address on it right


crux of this also these are incredibly incredibly sloppy affidavits and sloppy work and the fourth amendment can't be a sliding scale depending on if you're in rural idaho these are law enforcement these are not an ordinary citizens this is law


to use or threatened use of his or who agree with that i do agree with that so it seems to me then categorically he would not be a crime of violence


well they they said they wouldn't contest for liquidation but they didn't say they wouldn't contest or appeal the merits and so we could be up here again and you know the timing of these two cases are there on separate tracks there's nothing that binds the timing of this case to the timing of the


and ninety s when mr flores was serving as a police officer so is it the government's position so therefore parsing whether or not which of the two reasons things that happened to him that he was alleging


so the deal was all done except they had to sign the paperwork and do it so they had a deal so and that was all done three and what do you think you bring that up to the attention of the agency i do not know why it was not brought up below


and they never identified a conventional radio in our journey to us and the only excerpt that the board reliant on to show a pattern ability is this one section in column three of our drew this that has no disclosure of hardware so i mean there's just


when does one conclude that you know that the question was answered correctly and that the graham factors were properly employed so that is what it means to be a mixed question of fact in law which is what


use hindsight in the combination and secondly the entire teaching of smith is how to convert an alphanumeric index into a numeric and and it's literally throughout


spent five pages in a twenty one dollars page summary judgment order to hold the judge responsible for deciding whether pursuing d o e was a righteous thing to do that doesn't warrant central case finding after an adverse claim construction and you're under one more point


portion of program code that are malicious the board rejected that construction the bourne adopted the examiners construction


not specifically being precise enough there's also different cases that are being cited here that are very factually distinct such as cases that struck the supreme court cases that struck down laws changing who can enter


there's no reason to discuss to rule on that that's the point purpose of a waiver of the waiver cases to avoid having to address these issues that aren't coming from the vet but aren't part of the decisions of the veterans court


standing all of the authorities on this issue in various ways including instances where parties have either waived in settlement agreements or otherwise not supported their attorneys move for fees the courts have all said this is a


suspicion of sales the texas statute very much is dispositive the text of the statute describes actions making offering for sale or selling and as a consequence of having taken those actions the party is out of compliance with the statute that


only when when there are during the period in which there is making offering for sale or selling right that makes sense you only have to mark something if you're actually making it or selling it but once you have failed to do so the consequences of that failure


fifty eight cents which was the last prophet award that this court reversed so what it was what it was later with the money never left the pocket of a t c they they told their customers that they needed to jack the price up by a one dollar fifty eight cents


argument that if you put aside the self tuning column that the other mentions of scanning our aid to see whether it's seas included or not the plain language hits


support this man who's obviously in this amazing amount of distress and of course it was masking what the source of the distress was at the same time when he was there casting money for a doctor valentine or their wives


consider the mental impairment as a mitigating factor in either of those cases exactly it gave it no weight at all and said i'm not considering this i don't find it credible impose of those cases the court this court then came and said when there is a


considered that and decided even if he wasn't as blameworthy as somebody without that condition the conduct every last is something we don't need to live with another constantly which i think i asked your


case so answer the janitor's question it's because the determination of light is not substantial transformation you look in the cases at what substantial


as cryptic said we don't consider that when the t a a covers the agreement because when the t s a applies the p a does not and that was incorrect in our view and as a factual


that's the where and clause and the wearing cause has a configured to it it has a claim is that the transmission difference or just to make sure i understand your argument is


really is subject matter that's patent eligible it's not the idea of a solution it's a particular solution in the digital content and that's where we think the district court here got it wrong was it was looking at this patent these patents this


or you can only watch the movie on tuesday nights or you can only watch the movie on tuesday nights when it's when the time slots that up against a particular program that's essentially what they have now it would be a very different analysis


court has made it very clear and last is an explicit statutory bar agencies in court have the option to go to grant extensions even out of time since it is not true as a matter of practice yes we would


difference of opinion as to whether a cost is on allowable whether their regulatory guidance is clear and we differ with raytheon who is contending that the word salary with the word compensation has to be included in this


position that facebook's take its position is such that the decision in buckhannon should have been an idjit a decision for the defendant the party that was not


formulations that would fit within the claim and ultimately have to make the the formulation you would just run a p k study which all the experts agree was a standard study in this area just to address inherent see judge mallya raise that


specification ask isn't it unreasonable to not respond and if you do that bulteel times over the course of multiple your years doesn't that some point and up and prosecution might just you know your honor it might but that's not what happened here


to the agency at the agency despite the fact that he just said these were normal prosecution times they were not normal prosecutions because we emerged from prosecution from the examiner with no sense of where the written description support was but he says counsel suggests that they may have good


based on the guidance and mark we didn't say that you should change when you should use that type of estimate or reset it when it's running as the running estimate just of just how that running estimate are worked apple


this appeal we would accept the construction that was actually made by the board in a separate i p r the three hundred and seventeen and that's actually referred to in the what is that construction that construction specifically


fishery but that it would refuse to acknowledge constructive life insurance beneficiaries because it was not provided for under the act which is just false they p s o b determination letter from two thousand


everything like that and so again it's a generalized utterance regarding you know the distribution of some part of his say at some prospective point in the future and doesn't even offer designation language per se and i think even under california law if you go there


which they use during prosecution to get this case allowed and then there is the only one interpretation that they now use to try to get out from this interference clearly at least one is broader than only one in


diamond shaped of this particular color scheme that's printed on the product packaging somewhere almost like a logo and then in that sense the board would feel comfortable with that but otherwise it it would


board somehow implicitly thought that there was a problem with the lack of a pattern of or design here if it didn't ever actually articulate why walking by walking


mark consists of the colors red into yellow with a black banner located near the top as applied to packaging for the goods period then there's then it goes on the dotted lines merely to pick placement of the


products presumably but you're also making a presumption on the basis of a factual record that does not exist again there was no discovery and i think this goes back to pricing to your original question of what standard do we use and that's why we believe the no is appropriate


fall nd minute complaint and they indicated that those are the same claims that they had before that there was identity or substantial similarity and if that's the case then those are


and it's different technology and in this instance they did the initial complaints were saying that you must can you're doing that bonding you're doing the bonding


opposite they said that their ranges were guidelines not critical and that there is a wide range of interchangeable concentration that with a deal a deal you deary so that would that would be a situation that can't possibly


and dealing with invasive species the magnuson act ills with sort of just fisheries fisheries not helping fisheries management the marine mammal protection act which is at issue here the priority and that is to ensure that marine mammal were completely


me so i don't feel compelled to sit don't i do have a question that that goes back to the question of where this fits into the a p a is this in your view still a seven or sixty one


suggest that even if the master license agreement is coming to that sub wife survive they do not your honor and this is the point i wanted to get to so we talked about that st set of issues where you live civil code under the statute of


or so paradise creations your honor the fundamental difference that for florida case the fundamental difference there was there was a dissolution at the time that the assignment happened that the corporation


attorney general and the law at issue is not sufficient to abrogate the eleventh amendment immunity and fall under the exceptions to an ex parte young and that was the role the attorney general was in here judge bush in rather than being noticed of the challenge to the


created by this this permit they were they were told you with you would you have to go across the street you with your contrary message have to go across the street so long as your message is consistent you can set up a tent that's fine everyone


wouldn't it be a time place and manner restriction and all that your side was asked to do was to move across the street and then you then you continued with your message with bullhorns with everything because there's no most significant government interest that was being infringed there


inspection process and that's the reason that the inspection people wars brought in that lawsuit saw feel comfortable that didn't but that it did that exception would not really


argument regarding the construct of discharge is that the district court misapplied the standard this court has said you need to look at the facts of each case focusing on the employer's


in the six circuit has been the rocker decision and the rocker decision rests upon the supreme court's earlier decision and rally which under the unique facts of that case requires school districts to provide


best judgment at the time of where to put the kid so why i'm just wondering as a matter of law why why is our standard if it is indeed the standard why are we looking at the end of the alternative schooling for the results as opposed to looking at the


you these other instructions i like i'm holding them back and once you've made your decision on count x will decide whether to give you these instructions on count wires so in other words they don't even have a minute even know they exist doesn't know what they're about it might relate to


the court pointed out is the petitioner second argument but they both have two factors that are required before an implied acquittal doctrine can be applied the first is the jury is given a full and fair opportunity to decide the verdict clearly that didn't happen in this case sequence the


is is tried four times because you get one verdict in the judge isn't so great at trial and it keeps getting reversed in the mean why not just get the verdict on all of them there are important policy


inferences in favor of the nonmoving part so what does that mean for this case if after the trial court drew all reasonable inferences in favor of conestoga the evidence was such that a reasonable jury could


of selling it i mean was it a coincidence that you know really after the initial exchange of monies for the policy that i mean just right at the time the policies issued


cases and it seems like they're kind of going the other way thank you i've studied this for a long time the answer i have yours is actually the correct answer and you look at the restatement of restitution section one line you say what's the best and when they get all three of them


incorrect they told the department of education we are available for substantive complaints the truth of the matter is they are available for procedural complaints only and if a procedural complaint results in a substantive


opposing counsel's characterization of the record and we i submitted a what i felt like was a significant amount of proof showing that the state had been addressing these types of issues both before the time


would probably do the same thing in our case but we don't really know that do we well the associate general counsels says that this is not open for nobody says the op he says the opposite he says it


a very specific intent in the face of a really narrow and technical dispute over exactly what kind of a lien is going to be subordinated to the claim of the professionals well if the


up but it came up here so the court said well the courts are going to look at the at the record and see where their statements were the other representations that inform what was supposed to be going on here and i think the most the most striking one is the own words


how to sell them we need their professional assistance what does that mane if it doesn't mane that you will then be paid it means that we consented to the use of cash collateral for the


opposition to the brain or shame like our own country and especially how it cracks down on students and women's groups so when those things corresponded yes i think he was active in that but that doesn't mean that he was supporting one of the groups


is that exclusive though i mean what why do you say that i mean if he was just if he's passing out information that furthers the goal of the organization whether they would have paid somebody else to do it or why is that a winning material support of the


action and perhaps he's doing it correctly he's wearing state hat because his policy goes rogue from state law he becomes a county official i think that's what brotherton says and i think that's exactly what happened in this case


that legally that makes these affidavit this affidavit insufficient so that's the first question that you have to get over why is that true that doesn't seem to be true then secondly he goes on to say in the face of that is that then he looks for other


say are might be fraud right well and also the other ones we have and the four that are in the complaint well then there are others to those our example is no place in exhibit a or b doesn't even show when it shows us when the episode ended so if you assume that


no coulomb here tells us that any claim on a and b was certified after the episode and date because it doesn't have the date of the certification the allegations in the complaint or that every one of those claims


congress i mean that's your position right so in one thousand no four in the bradford case the u s supreme court held that section nine hundred fifteen must be construed according to its terms and that the right to


so the second answer is you are distributing the word civil to suit or proceeding you have a disjunctive or there so typically you would not distribute civil to suit or proceeding the word suit in proceeding certainly in compass


payment rules and twenty two fifty four twenty five with another set of payment rules and that in other words i'm assuming so this is different from judge griffin's point which is that if we did a different rule for twenty to forty one they might suggest we in banking kate


address difficult issues as this court didn't hill against masters with respect to when twenty to forty one is available to heebie as petitioners it's my right to think that you think whatever we do we should do the same thing for all three i think that that makes sense


mendiola says we declined to import any federal standard which expressly eliminates substantial protection to employees in rilya and further rejecting royal's contention we conclude the federal statute scheme which differ


not only do i think we could win i think we should win a gold that my point simply is that there will be an impact from the decision from the california supreme court on this case it may not end the case but it's the first question the threshold


in first arising after telling the insurers in january that no claim or demand have been made in february two thousand and fifteen finally provided notice of a claim the policy defines claim very broadly


to compare the december two thousand and fourteen presentation that first arise and says it's a claim to what happened in april two thousand and fourteen april two thousand and fourteen first arising pointed out that the


found that the miracle dissolution agreement was not in the us under tennessee the tennessee supreme court decision of ballard's vs bowers that it was clear that marital dissolution agreement or divorce cannot revoke a beneficiary


that to to the the tennessee constitutional right to trial by jury correct and isn't that the klein yes that and i know that there is some question federal constitution but that case also


because it indicates that the very purpose for which this was created would be undercut if if you don't do it if you don't do the calculations that he suggests they should be done but i think what we


serve or if they furnish services to a medicaid eligible person who is actually getting medicare and medicare is paying for it why would the total costs incurred by the


was when was your last dose how much have you been taking how long have you been taking it those are all factors that go in withdrawal that no one ever inquired into in this case and on the differential diagnosis i think judge gilman brought up the idea that you


the effect on the parent company other than that it's a subsidiary that's involved in it was there information before the court beyond the fact that this was a subsidiary


issue the court did not request in the mind of suede and is counsel the court was not requesting expert testimony because it wanted to find a standard


owner seat of the cargo and that is when we became legal legally liable for this only distinction with that case that i can identify far from the fact that it isn't the high court of tennessee the rather the middle court


didn't grant yours is there i mean there's this question of whether that your liability to p s g was one hundred thousand or three hundred thousand starts is one hundred you're saying you agreed


that provision in this very contract which says what is in the other part of the i'm not remembering the precise part of your contract which says you have to have a


deposition of this into t was taking it did provide a corporate representative that was standing in the shoes of the organization so the organizations books and records all of that are within the knowledge of this corporate representative presumably and the


your dog looking at paragraph eleven and you know i can imagine the implication that that's what's going on but i must say it's not clear to me and it doesn't help me to save the ha


good morning greg pennington on behalf of the attorney general i want to start at the beginning of the removal proceeding he was charged as being in the miscible at the detroit airport he was charged for a


it's forcing them to upgrade their product to buy a more premium product from the defendant and it cost that even with the coupon is higher than they spend initially start yesterday or so i ask a question about the word redeem and calf and i'm not sure of the


end that's what this is about they're just wanting to not have the plaintiff's lawyers get paid i get it that's the way of the land these days we did provide a benefit respectfully we could debate the merits of the benefit but benefits were provided both from a


you have a situation where there is the release the ninety nine percent of people who are getting nothing in exchange for the release and the risk of foreclosing a future cause i saw in action leads to an absolute harm that the vast majority of the costumers are


ultimately to avoid a rule fifty motion at trial and so i think it's not inconsistent to read fletcher's prima fashioned case language as comporting with our position but i think to the extent you would read it further you would into the problem of the ohio supreme court having


no clear statement that congress was thinking about displacing the federal rules that's potential it's especially true because in the original version of the act as we know it in our supplemental brief congress said that it expressly one of the federal rules to apply yeah


guidelines and again the government agreed that that was appropriate i believe the probation report also did so you had a variety of actors in the system here except for the district judge who thought it within guidelines sentence was appropriate i


minor driving offenses related to an invalid driver's license or invalid license plates he did have to possession marijuana possession charges both of which he received fines for and he had a disorderly conduct charge for which


what they can do is go get a court order in that instance so in that situation the repossession if you're coming into rivers us the property and i just say i don't want you to do that that's and said yes what right that person becomes


that it can be applied to the collective action is decision reserved for the undersigned we would respectfully i'm not out of curiosity just one issue historical question was there ever discussion about doing


questions are such a fair question because you're saying that's very exaggerated there are some people who may not even of work forty hours why would you not put them on and examined them and in the stablished that gosh


and the evidence question is don't think of it as a multi plaintiff's case think of it as a single plaintiff f l s a case what evidence would be fair to use for the plaintiffs in estimating for three years worth of work


that some of the disciplinary actions was were appealed to the civil service board in cook's case there was a settlement before the hearing before the civil service board so the civil service board never heard any of the disciplinary charges


lab and then to cover it up certainly the public i'd say that public corruption is a matter a quintessential matter of public concern you'll have your full rebuttal


there is actually not an age differential required so therefore if a person you know if if an individual who is fifteen years old is a victim and the perpetrator is seven you know is sixteen and a half or


must be for a jury and the state couldn't decide otherwise windows credible new determinations go to the heart of that a fine then case central to his defense i believe the court cannot take that


but that's that's a finding relative to what took place at the residence that's a job residence but the whole the whole argument here as i understood it so correct me if i don't understand this is if somebody was pistol whipped


and the competing considerations there are some of the three thousand five hundred and fifty three factors that may have supported the defendant's argument but there were significant factors at the court considered that warranted an upward variance here you agree or disagree with the notion that


whitaker there were several sided that are distinct from this or at least europe posing council argues are distinct because they because the statutory provisions under which they're operating did not have the provisions


had lifetime accepted plaintiff's bar tells a notice of cancellation when it was submitted on december seventh had it immediately accepted that cancellation had it not charged him the additional one hundred twenty six dollars and had it refunded the dues paid under the contract


initiations so i understand the court's point that not every attempt as an it is an initiation and vice versa however i think i think every initiation would be an attempt because i think the initiation is


this court has already noted look attempting to manufacture attempting to distribute a controlled substance also counts as a serious drug offense that cited in your brief i assume yes that is that is cited but there's numerous other circuits that have also said attempting to


honor i think a concern that that we have have raised and have have mentioned is that in that particular district at least there are multiple is a large history there are multiple district


choice i certainly understand the concept well but i'm septa's it is accurate is it i mean you can sue the the employer not sue the employee and the employee if you don't sue him is not liable right that is true even though he did everything wrong


motion for leave to withdraw we were back in front of the court in august of that same year where the court had presided over a specific hearing at which she questioned the individual lawyers and the law firm cabochon to three


of section one nine hundred eighty three because the judgment creditor was a state actor under color of law and its actions are fairly attributable to the state in the instant case the defendant chesapeake


and prejudgment execution this court has stated on multiple occasions that does not apply outside of those contacts in addition luger factually is different because in that case there was some activity by a state actor to


going back to the same area you're carrying a loaded firearm and if you look at page i d ninety seven of the m p s are the this shooting that hatch so hatter shot that's how he's found with the firearm the shooting was an execution style shooting it wasn't a


of the snow but notably the district court did not mandate this finding the inquiry that she allowed and that she further instructed the jury to undertake based on her jury instruction was twofold st she left it up to the


substantial or substantial similarity to the crime at hand what is the world for b purpose that you think the personal income tax failure to crow was relevant to again it was clear from the very beginning that the


of rd circuit case which we cite which would make exactly that point that it's very easy for for a for b evidence that's addressed to willfulness to slide into propensity and so in deciding whether for a for be evidence comes in on


months we did and i agree with mike i agree with my so that was part of their their contract their their promise and why wasn't that breached when the government says that i think the appropriate sentence is thirty one to thirty seven


by the by the plaintiff there's no allegations in the complaint that these statutes are unconstitutional there's no allegation in the complaint that these defendants improperly interpreted the statutes or improperly applied them or acted beyond the


in fact my clients went through although i'm not claiming correct me if i'm wrong not damages because you were misled correct what were they doing and that permanent misconduct deals with whether you can recover or being misled and you can only do


they have to do an individual assessment these nine hundred letters are all the same except for the name weren't the letters in the sense setting up the individual assessments by saying to the people present


outside for only a two hour period and i believe the testing that appellant is relying on in this case was limited to testing performed in one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine by a doctor who could not recall if he ever saw her in person regarding placement sub


basis well you decided that was not entitled to st amendment protection but not for the same reason as the just right that's right and we said you lose because this was not


just require all of it to be protected which is what we're we've got right now well i think if we delete case number being case number see from this database and give them the data without those things i suspect that manufacturer b and manufacturer c will say the washington post


airlines on these aircraft operations manuals are over six hundred pages long and my client noted there is hundreds of errors in them sometimes when they were edited my client made several complaints to her


the subject matter expert who is a pilot typically to input literally just just like when if we were told secretary to input information and then it would be reviewed multiple times multiple times up the chain she was not involved in that also there were


so asking this court to stack both findings and the contact finding i'll take those in two parts we know that the tort damages are duplicative for two reasons and the most obvious reason is because j t v told the jury


have to rely on what the judge decided and look here i'm not saying that i'm what i'm saying is we can't disregard that testimony we have a statement here that says i x i saw this


whistleblower issue the st part is that the board judge found that dr luke who did not make a protect disclosure the nd separate independent finding is that that the board judge found that even if dr who made this disclosure it wasn't a


case came on staff and seventeen immediately the head of the part time doctors and ministration said dr who should be audited that's when the audit began a month later doctor who wrote this


we didn't have anything that was suitable enough to make a comparison and what we did have didn't match your client mr humidex that's that's far different than saying


roller there was an intervening layer between the heat sink and the control model just like we've argued in this case you can't have something shielding that that's not heat seeking and that's that's what the record would show however their construction which they got at the district or


meant it kept talking about the invention was to create a rule of law what does that mean creating the rule was just kind of like the range equations here in the sense that


by the stage dance that's one way of doing it and obviously when you do that at the end of their work you see all of the loaded scenery that's the way the claim is talking about what penn point does if you're a different pen point the curtain is down as far as the disclosure


the of the claims in them by itself because the patent does not support separate and distinct hardware limitation as we pointed out in the


that's what their expert said there were ten pieces of extrinsic evidence that were introduced there cited in a red brief and the district court made fact findings about what one of skill in the art would understand these terms to mean outside the context of the patent we


that's consistent that's fine but you don't have the reference there's no really don't need to supply the reference in order for a person more new skill new york but that's not what that's his own unsupported conclusion there's nothing that he points to that says that he points to things that look exactly like


so on they didn't do any of these things and the law should not reward laziness especially when we have a stake in important property right with respect to intellectual ventures well if you've got something like that i triple aaa i mean it's pretty well known that you know what it does and what


speedy and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding so not only is this reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard but i think also the board the board and rules give a considerable leeway to determine what's reasonable and what's not and into


to find i'm sorry for your name i'll get your phone number yes you are but the way that it does that is it use a search term this is the first information the first information is my name that's in the document and it uses my name


not need to perform all of the functions of the district court was all that in favor of the position google had forth which was that each computer needs to perform all of those functions and hence the court's instructions were trying to said something


contractual or equitable basis for attorney's fees that time and fifty four d still apply so simply saying it's a contract doesn't answer the question if you look at the advisory committee note it says rule fifty four d does


limitations that are not in claim sixteen such as the capacity the battery or the rate of charge and those are not limitations in claim sixteen so in the sense that all of this is beside the point so they take the boards


and thirty six are missing the entire limitation on which the board ruled with respect to the other claims and in the board took that rationale in for to go over to another set of claims that simply doesn't even have the same element that's a big big problem the rationale simply


the video signal the third area is that the t v only works in analog conversion can i ask you because you just focused on three things and i have a question about something you didn't


places i just as i do think that makes a difference particularly when you're looking at the way the second prong of the analysis is supposed to track which is looking at all the facts and circumstances would it be


california multiple times to enforce these patents against targets we had in mind when we acquired the patents from california it just beggars belief and the only answer that opposing counsel had for that was under this court's


that is facilitating the rest of the entire method so the transmission of the images the storing of the images on the website the ability for the remote pharmacist to access those images all of those and then eventually to verify it's


sprinkling on them when there's no fire however that's just one of the functions and the reason people put far sprinklers are for when there's a fire and that was the testimony of the engineer regarding the mechanical issue which was on those


only fifty two vans in those in virginia that was known on the record and that was deemed to be enough here we have double that i would assert your on of that everyone has fan is far different


and referred to in kaplan came from what the group working on that piece of the project that's what they three to invent or say like burn half that's what setter says although he's pretty ambiguous about it because his testimony was


we have never disputed that man at all is known and there was back and forth between the two of them between the respective groups as to who may be inventive contribution at the end of the day what they recognize is it collectively because


of source code meet that definition or frankly your honor the issue is whether we've gap the source code and the remote control device if we if we get to see what happens to those signals once they're received by the remote control device parrot decided


agree just that they prevented us as lawyers in our technical experts from doing the job they needed to do with the source it was as if they weren't giving it to us at all we would have to sit there and read it on a screen ask permission to print portions


if and when we look at the boards opinion on here and see with respect to heckle we see that the single critical piece of evidence that the board relies on to support its conclusion is that the upper ridge


right and we pointed to column eight and it was lines thirty five through forty right and i think what's being referenced there is actually wall section eighty five wall section eighty five there is also a reference to the second section of this in


five were wrong and so you got to do it again the question is does he have the goods to back up the argument that you know a bunch of those adverse findings were clearly erroneous i agree with you and our position is he doesn't have the goods and that


that mean that's the only thing missing from dire welcome places about it's a stupid little point but your the petitioner it was your burden put on evidence this isn't a case where you know it's just the government acting on its own which is a little more


response to and if the user stops the claims not satisfied unless the system then carries on and determines to carry out a different number of steps but i thought the user changed the number of


reconfigure if i want this state to have different icons in different places i go to a scholarly doesn't have the idea that is correct then the the author of the inventor has no idea and doesn't


just object to the fact that he referred to those other two patterns in that in the order because the reality is he could have awarded the exact same amount on the night when six in fact would have had to have well no except except for the evidence at trial


mean the the definition of switch telecommunications system basically says if you have switches a switch system that is used to initiate a call through a bare channel that's a switch telecommunications system the use of the use of the word comprising


routine engine vention as of two thousand the answer is it can't finally work here again on a rule twelve motion and it does feel to my client like an ambush like there are so many issues that haven't been addressed i believe that


called doctrine from grokster and the associated line of copyright cases on which this court has previously relied for some of these doctrines in law what we what you need is to be able to


probably aware of based on the conversations you had a moment ago with my co counsel so the first problem is what with which if we're going to adopt the construction that it's if the if he gets construction was correct that it's just a set of instructions that tells


even in the range of six years that we're talking about here we actually do use multiple independent contractors and why don't we just construe it as everybody that's been using systems for the show we'll get there i think we've got a case law on our side that says


and perhaps most important warm and my daily presence you know sometimes intense environment for a year i have benefited greatly from their commitment their excellent work


of content extraction kind trying to decide this particular issue in the sense that there there were a couple claims that were chosen as the representative claims to


say oh no we have we do this we do this we do this they didn't respond they're only response was they just repeated what the claim said and said yeah but we use we use voice actors and and then you know with their with their flame


of the case it talked about is that you are yes your honor there so eighty three ninety nine and a think the passage for twenty three there are multiple passages where we're talking about these issues but it isn't


figuring out what makes something a cat aren't self evident just because someone's handed you that cat you can say four legs and two wives but that would give you a lizard also you can say four legs and two eyes and fluffy but that might give


analysis which is the first phase of their targeted dumping analysis to decide whether they can use their alternative methodology they they compare the normal calculation which is the average the average methodology


simply not accurate when the offer was made to license the products product in the agreement is defined as breath testing kids and breath testing services


when in our minds we come to an amicable resolution so certainly in that hearing we brought up the issues of this insurance policy that no one knows anything about because it wasn't put into evidence so we didn't know if the proceeds are really well


only what it's capable of doing it in the specific process where it's being used and instance little back and forth we've been having about the meaning of capable is that something that they had made an issue of know that their position was that


point three nineteen provides that a party dissatisfied with the final written the situation of the patent problem appeal board may feel so is that a yes i don't want to take up any more time i'm sure my colleagues have questions but it seems to me that that's a yes i think so well


misunderstanding that was stated on record i think here would have been enough for the additional court to say well no it is not an automatic penalty if you testify it's just or did say i can't advise you on the law and have stand by counsel sitting there and


counsel he does not there by way of all other fundamental constitutional rights at trial he as i said there are many rights the can't counsel can weigh in on behalf of the defendant think it's quite reasonable to say that person a defendant can waive


it would be like a sentencing a new and it would be in her judgment to determine one of the


january there's often the realest process now so it might be until mid january i guess around january fifteenth or thereabouts we'll have an indication as to whether the court's going to take that case but if there is a grant of search right at that point then i think waiting to see what the supreme court does


exactly honestly your honor what they were going to do with the property they never a chance to do anything with it before it was torn down but they wanted to rehabilitate it and sell it yes which they asked her


cannot be made whole for traditional due process fourth amendment says your claims like that here thank you


with economic reality which is the watchword of this court's decisions particularly the matching decision the idea here is to provide settlements compensation consistent with economic reality and rather than sort of


lawsuit in which it is not a party now for the sole issue that we've raised before this court is whether the district court used an improper standard when it ordered the immediate unsealing


turned upside down the standards that this court has used and i'd like to get to that immediately because what this court has established is that first of all


the federal district court ruled on the motion to compel arbitration in this case a state court had already resolved that question staying the very same arbitration that apted was asking the district court to compel whatever the federal court may have thought about


inconsistent judgments to be a tremendously important consideration in cases involving arbitration this court has other cases in which it's treated colorado river abstention as appropriate in the arbitration context


initiation the state court lawsuit and four months after interest of an adverse order the defendant went to federal court and asked the federal court to compel arbitration again


submitted two different summaries of our evidence if you will one of them was based on the the billing records of the stigler farms admitted and then the other one was based on public records documents such as for example the


will be no need to enter the engine room to begin with which brings me to a point see at the watch my time brings to the point of analyzing why we were in the fall of the drills aboard the vessel as opposed to running into the engine room when there's an imminent


herniated disk at the l four five level as well as spondylolisthesis which is defined as the shifting of the l four five level and dr mccarthy explained that the vertebrae move back and forth he testified that the best


we have a situation where i understand statement which is so inflammatory and so germ a name to the main question at issue that the mr d has a voted himself to trafficking marijuana and that if you


laid out in the paragraph eleven of the contract the district court then had to rewrite the law on the prompt payment act because the district because although it's a pay when pay situation when we're paid we have to


the contractor and it's under this provision and if this provision merely acts as a conduit to broad subcontractor access to the owner which would mean the court to seek reimbursement for damages incurred for delays caused by the owner and its agents we knew that all the delays in this project


talks about they had him for example he mentions trinity episcopal school or we expanded the parking lot those drawings begin in the those new drains begin in the parking lot in the water drains from the parking lot into the drains and comes


that exceeded any absolute bull state standards and the ones that mr sharma had invoked in his is expert report and then he supposedly maintained at least up until the time that we deposed him where the recap standards


higher than that and we should be able to go to a jury and say this is far worse than background and then there are the culprits they're the ones responsible for it and that and not to implement now that said there are regulatory exceeded


opinion he said to the extent pale it that you continue to rely on this concept that there was something that was going to happening in the future it happened you got the money you got the terminations of the management


you ask anybody to email you the underlying data no did you ask anybody to pay even provide it and they said we don't need all that it's not worth our time we're not going to sue you all this is in the record


another twenty two we go through all those rotations until we could have been a trial this where we go back to the assumption from pfeiffer that he would have continued to work but for the disability


so why is one hundred thousand dollars not appropriate because it's already been a year and a half since then i putting aside the line on campus cation piece which to me it's big polluted but what do i know but what do you do it


r initially stated that the laundered amount was six hundred seventy three thousand five hundred thirty three dollars and that's at a table at eighty nine sixty three in the record and essentially that is the entire


he did not refer to the supervised release conditions and they are not included in any of the price other categories that he did list that's correct so that's the part that was not specifically adopted that's correct when


mean why would a release of b p prevent them from going to a government fund i'm sorry why would a release given to b p prevent your clients from going to the government found


place there was a meeting on november the tenth two thousand and sixteen november first twenty sixteen where we've hired a ph d biologist to design this protocol the protocols modeled after one that national marine fisheries uses and its projects


single case in which an appellate court affirms an injunction against a completed facility they have cases were were upheld talk about it and they have cases where there's an injunction issued while a project is in development the cases from this court the springer


by my count at least five or up to seven times the supreme court in whorls said it clearly generic burglary includes remaining in a structure when the defendant forms an intent to commit a crime at any time while


said that the court should not an appellate court should not address a wave timeliness argument and it can has the discretion to address a forfeited timeliness argument but only in exceptional circumstances and when the court among those circumstances the


know that he was violating the law and the n t kickback statute starts out with a requirement that any violation of the statute has to be knowing and willful and that imposes the specific


and whether a to reasonable juror would have had a reasonable doubt as to mr mcardle stuff x and i want what's the actual claim you want us to throw out the verdict based on what happened insufficient evidence that the


point four it says well what you have to use are the next benefits and as judge smith pointed out in landers what net benefit means is you take the total amount of the contract with the sums paid


was disabled from occupation we will never know but he certainly provided a statement of her support yes before we move on from the definition was there anything else the principle relied on to define own occupation aside from


clear you said there are there might be a case where the idea that the use of incorrect guidelines range would be is effect substantial rights would be rebutted but in order for that to happen two things must happen the record


that the constitutional error occurred here went to her client get out of jail run our client gets out of jail right now the b o p website says in october of twenty ninety next year so he would receive a


that case actually doesn't stand for what vessel owners propose it does it actually shows that we're premature in this instance because we haven't gotten to the sale price additionally the court has to resolve the person because only in that instance is this in a forcible shit mortgage says a relates


is a little different in fact a lot different than what was in the opening and the opening brief by appellants they raised the single issue of whether in their in their terms whether state law governs the validity of a shit


idea that ts longto failed during due diligence to identify this the r s a issue and our position it is as a matter of law that a party


requires did you raise that this actually is not a valid credited to yes because what you did raise that with judge minority but did you raise that any point so that we could consider that issue


first case of cross contracting company but there is far before liability or damages toned down there is no white collared a pink tail case that you're able to cite


look we need state law to define the parameters of marine insurance issues this is not just a marina chance issue it's also a limitation of liability yes i did want to touch on it but i want to emphasize to you i'm not ignoring the fact that there is some


brief that we are bound by what the primary lawyer does and a clause with side


by counsel is in the inmate request greve it was noted as exhibit sixteen and in it there was a response from one of your


been i will say also in answer to your previous question the declaration of charles smith is in the record document eighty five and it doesn't say anything about this grievance he was only seated in relation to a different claim so that's the only thing that


a freedom of movement that is a constant but it wouldn't be enough to establish that he was briefly detained to execute the warrant you'd have to show that it was a custodial interrogation well that's one of the factors i think you have to show that he was under arrest


different to be the saying i mean the nd you that hand it to you purchased it and you possessed it but you don't need to be handed that you don't need to be handed the drugs but what i'm saying about the florida statute is that it the fact that they lay out both purchase and possession tells


so so that's the sequence judge martin on that and it is absolutely true that judge steele as a matter of law could find that there was authority to search authority to


forfeiture and that so the fact that he pled not guilty and with the trial going that undercut your argument that he was not provided ineffective assistance because he went to trial when you offered him a you offered him a plea deal after he was convicted


this there was no post trial offer from the government yes there was a post trial offer mr fayed has said if you're willing to come in and work if you're willing to make calls provide information then you there's a possibility that you can get your


to pursue a plea and assistant u s attorney steven vega and james both testified at the evidence you're hearing that he was amenable to a plea and this is one of


with is what dr dubois testified to regarding his interpretation of the medical record let me ask you then that's undisputed if the word diagnosis is ambiguous because it could mean diagnostic procedure or it could mean


who specialized in long cancer and all that was before the policy became a fact so in that case fairly distinguishable from what we've got here now and there is no designation of that there was no mass saying there was no recommendation that she go to an


directly relevant of course are the mc a soupy because suki tribe of indians versus united states case and the much more recent decision from the district of columbia circuit reporters committee for freedom of the press versus the f b i which was decided just in


thank your honor may i please the court i'm thomas byron from the department of justice i'm happy to address any questions the court might have about the plaintiff's appeal in this case but i guess my overarching view that i think it's


nor try or to flee or use diversion tactics there after it took two and a half hours after the vessel sank for the coast guard to locate the debris field this case has none of the factories and will com or tenneco which is


i believe judge martin in the alexander case in which there was a procuring opinion that you participated in in two thousand and seventeen it said that although the alexander court your court was not going to recommend


guideline to merit a death threat it's just finding that in this particular narrow situation given the factual context here i find that a death threat was made and if your honour's like i could address the court statement at the sentencing hearing but i'm


and foremost of standing story elements and it goes on to say to establish injury in fact a point of must show that he or she suffered in a vision of a legally protected interest that is concrete in particular as an actual or imminent not


was set up by a judge jack horney yes the county has to agree to it but if he doesn't authorize it it doesn't happen as it always been the case under georgia law different from the federal provisions that issue and judge holds opinion


contract between private parties it's inforced as written and that's what we are asking the court to do in force this this was a contract is entered into the plaintiff's testified that he read the contract he understood the contract he had the


second factor is that where there's a municipal policy of retaliation that's an especially serious situation and


exhibits and then there were at that time twenty nine washington been filed based on those requests and the out there were a variety of outcomes as minor standing some of them are still pending your


believe that he was likely molested that's my attempt to respond to your question from earlier about whether there's an inconsistency there and we are not disputing and it never disputed that a great deal of


but what she describes in the record is sitting at home waiting for him to come back and she is the only source there i do think it's important though that again she's not denying that she drank she's admitting that she drank during her pregnancy


means that is right in front of your face i don't know that in plain sight means that you have actual knowledge of it and i think that's abstention he was making but i also think again and this is the leap that i think is too attenuated and too far to make is that the


to the other florida case about the provision about miscarriage of justice that seems like a very different kind of provision than stopping the payment or version ery interest in the case of the united states


action in the principal place of business that's a florida supreme court opinion the florida supreme court says no repealed by the legislature is the best and disha of the legislature a rejection of the principle so the


and not the insurers liability for it and the georgia courts including this court interpreted that language as saying precisely that now we know that this court in the metals vs transportation insurance


their testimony he was moving forward aggressively with a knife first we look at the specifics of what they're saying we're going to deputy him and he testified that christopher greer was in the threshold of the door we know to first of all the door is that's you close the door that's for a person the


for a split second before shots were fired and it was over it happened that fast within three seconds thirteen rounds were fired with two officers how do you explain the position of the body in relation to the door


deceit and close the door i'm reluctant to say no sir i will not ok but the door close we've always yeah asked speculated from the weight of his body as he was coming fall as he was getting shot


government had only that morning provided videotape evidence that they were required to provide previously the magistrate decided to go forward with the hearing the magistrate ultimately ruled against mr


summary witness button for all intents and purposes he was given the effect of an expert with any such predicate


point is taken that there was sufficient evidence elsewhere i'd like to address the other issues raised by mr garcia st of all with regards to the motion to suppress just as a


the the and i maybe called it wrong i say munchkin and it's a much dick excuse me but the much nick case was a case where you had a consolidated class part of the class had registered


sufficient for diversity jurisdiction in this case given the allegation in paragraph five of the complaint because i think that under the red cab theory when you get to a declaratory judgment you have to show a preponderance of the evidence and i understand that at this


the deaver miami dade police weaver i'm sorry w e v e r testified that he could not identify who was in that vehicle and that vehicle is tied into jeffrey pitts not jethro is my time is up all right


party for sinatra health care i don't see her services when i look at the plain language of the statute that suggests to me that entitles the state to reimbursement for past medical expenses future medical


initially proposed by the debtor in their initial plan the trustee objected to that term of the plan stating that it did not meet the best interest of creditors house the objection to confirmation was initially withdrawn and so that


to thirty pounds he doesn't make any recommendations about avoiding work so even if if you were to say he was thinking about different things when he wrote them he certainly didn't restrict claimant from


clan that according to mr was testimony gave him money and told him that his best option was to leave that's exactly right your honor in fact that's the reason he left his wife and children was to go seek an education so that he could perhaps make a better life for his entire family to


is an ideological terrorist organization that sought out targeted mr sami specifically from well before two thousand and seven on up through two thousand and fifteen when he was finally convinced that he could no longer live safely in the country


finding that he the only remedy that he gave them was to maintain the current positions and titles that they have and awarded the principal ten thousand dollars for bonuses that the had missed during the time that he was at it i'll try to sign it which is a typical thing that the school district