industrial relations to try to find out if he had in some ways to try to find out if he had bible income and they learned that mr fisher was not employed by an alabama employer during the time of this one more question about that the alabama


in allowing that case to go up later the jury to determine forcible compulsion which they did in that case so there was actually the rush it was much different and i find it compelling that


further to determine whether the particular category r c did fine that it did not without reviewing state law and and so i feel that we fell short of


significantly the government it does tailed with the with the mountain of other evidence that the government had that he was also abusing controlled substances of his own and direct the court's attention to the five days in april two thousand and eleven when he


thousand and ten to two thousand and fifteen they were all making decisions and paying patients and they didn't own anything they own the pharmacies in two thousand and ten that's a very good question i think most as i said most of the


jury so the my how did you know that in no way undermines the proposition that a reviewing court would be free to look at the conduct of the insured and its counsel to under the totality of the circumstances to


there a remaining question material question of fact in this about geico assertion that the billing was excessive and


and the government decides yes or no but in deciding yes or no does the government look at the i j a ruling on a crime of moral turpitude and give that any effect or do they act as if that ruling had never


a number of different items there were in some notebooks they were in secreted in hidden compartments in some purses they were hidden in some jackets a number of jackets and they


none of that they make a motion really before the trial begins he says denied and that that's basically the state of the record well i wouldn't go that far your honor let me make two points on that


experts i've had a lot of cases where the government just written me says because we know the agents how to get into their opinion about what drug carriers to about the drug trafficking try how it works they get into this


is not required the bank record it's not required and other evidence of the contents of the record is admissible of the contents of the bank record as the


the limited time that that adams was present that was so was that not the case dr adams was present over an extended period of time or one day a week was it as a four hours a day or so or one but for one day a week for four hours a day


president that that's the question of so your your argument has to be that the end of the day there is no discipline basically which sends a message that you could use executive force i i could agree with your honor to this extent certainly was our


particular outer which directly challenge the version of the events that was told to the sheriff which was the basis of his public statement the basis of the same today press release which directly contradicts the evidence excuse me the


immunity defense is not relevant to the fourth amendment excessive force claim if there has been an excessive force violation


good morning here on morning we have please the court brenda brand with the federal defender's office on behalf of mr st hubert if the court were to decide this case i


can get its proof that he knew there is no evidence that he knew there was contraband but that wouldn't even be enough because the government would have been required to show that he knew that there were drugs and cocaine on the


inferences the innocent ones are that he's an employee his employer bores you you need to go get your car i'm putting this cargo on follow me and he did exactly what he was told


nineteen essential makes that argument for us where they say in quote no defendant other than anglo opted to take the polygraph or testify essentially in suing that the complaint we're


they will be able to prove that it was a toilet and that's enough that's sufficient to convict him let me i think you have a strong case just frankly on the law without regard


perceived under the law dangerous weapon even if it's a toy if it's perceived by the victim as having been real that that's the argument of why there's no prejudice here because it wasn't inconsistent you can be


he said in the bank documents and his request for thor's ation for the loan was his income this is the kind of thing that all lawyers can say he was acting in good


observation that this man was conscious and doing certain things that suggested to her some responsiveness and that's spelled out in the record nurse tomato expressed the opinion that paramedics should be called but again


due to the statements on that date and the apply equally since this defect was never cured to fifteen statements afterwards the district court made two mistakes it made a mistake as


that samsung is not going to use the chip but they're not admitting there's a heating problem the other manufacturers are using the chip but they're having a heating problem in the sales are bad because of the heating problem and so you get to july and now they say sales are bad and your


son jury question but i mean you're erect that's your expert's opinion why isn't the jury question because there's nothing to dispute that in the record even mr clarke you know he did not take any measurements or dispute the speed or anything that our


i'm hadn't appreciated and maybe still don't appreciate the distinction between an investigation and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and they both seem like you were starting some action we're going to look at things and maybe do something to you and more


shouldn't address the commercial speech doctrine well that's the that's the statutory provision but what i'm saying is that's the state statutory provision here in federal court under the collateral murder


what are actual duties that have to be performed and how that would not humans that you raise in this case for rejected by the california court of appeal and hernandez versus tactile right that is correct in that way how do you distinguish this case from hernandez


the box or signed the form or otherwise it just it just verifying that part of the routine practice was to give folks notice of this program i think everybody was provided with a home start guideline i know you keep saying i'm just i'm just like i'm missing that one of the i guess i'm missing what i'm


it that was already in their vehicles none any time they spent taking the women on or off the vehicle was compensable that was paid time the only time we're talking about here is from they do their last duty in the field they are due no further work


get up to the top this was a designed structure was intended to be a field that could be used for various outdoor activities it was apparently designed without a fence along the top edge because that's the way it had been for at least thirty years that


tire and a rearview mirror i'm saying these are two things that beep that you when you're doing something unsafe in a car and i think there's a real in the jury the visor jury agreed with us there's a real concern that maybe somebody's less sophisticated we had ten people in


insurance so somebody to buy allstate insurance who doesn't have a key is going to be confused well because let's say for example you see it on t v the key is got dr weiss or they go to a deal and they look at a kid before they go and buy a honda and they sell their driveways things pretty neat oh i get


recommendation i know it's on the record i recommend you get an overdraft program and the recommendation and then you go buy an overdraft program for somebody else do you owe the money no you know i don't believe something that is so general


impossible for me to know without conducting discovery and that it doesn't seem that you have any allegations that in that time you were prevented from coaching prevented from chaperoning field trips or anything else is that right i wasn't prevented from doing that but i had to declare it to the place because at


days so i guess so if week if we move past younger and get into the burford and the colorado river california requires that certain county judges obtain expertise in


quickly which is of paramount importance here mr lawlor told me ms lawlor is the disability service officer that was that is at issue in this case she was the person primarily responsible for determining at least at initially


basically he said it all depends on what he said and the later declarations explain you know the specifics of the different training programs we selected so and so because he did it for acting and so on and so forth


ability there that the market didn't previously know of this and so you know it wasn't baked into the marketplace yet and i think it's always going to be a question of fact that in that case you know the defense may have a better argument that there is not a not plausible it's not plausible that


that it has to plead to be proved it was not raised in the pretrial pleadings because at that point there was an expectation is that they were still trying to work to come to trial and they would be there there was an expectation that they would still have to testify right on the case they were still


the south african individuals and the american corporation is there while the contractors are different but employers all together correct a contract here was entered into between the u s employer to for an individual


parties do not dispute the standard of review here abuse of discretion where there is a dispute though is how you weigh and apply that standard we contend it's hinkson and i know the courts for milieu are with the test but i want to


westlake was required to plead factual going that credit exceptions affirmatively misled it that it was not on constructive or actual knowledge notice of its claims and that it diligently tried to it to uncover the facts of its


it's our position she was exercising her first amendment right under city of used in versus hill to simply ask the officer what's the purpose of your engagement with me is that really interesting case because it arises out of a dispute over


part of law enforcement as a collective whole under the collective knowledge doctrine to know who this woman was but there is no absolutely no sets rule that we're not asking court to find all that whoever calls for us should be


in reaching this conclusion the trial court relied principally on six undisputed material facts back number one deputy smith was dispatched to respond to a parking lot


held after that point regardless of which sort of law enforcement privilege we do or don't apply how is it in bowman committing the element of false


to do something else and i could then trigger additional testing right where but it but i mean if we're focused on what happens between now and when she does the test and when she sends it to the supervisor which here was close to two months you know the the


support this because we have no choice not because we're doing what's best for the city and then the last point is just quickly and redress ability i think i think the district's holding on addressability just ignores the fact that any discretionary


review of legal and constitutional claims i don't believe that the government is right that they should attribute to those other panels where they weren't the same facts and procedural posture that kind of zero ruling you're a little bit giving interviews when you think no right


any event does not link up with hay vs all of the cases the supreme court cited and sing see or all of these cases say you have to have review of statutory regular ten regulatory claims that's the principal reason why the suspension clause was


done all of that and done everything you could within just a couple of weeks to get the award out the door and the award says the money must be paid in five days you still have to wait for the release of the movie i don't think three dollars


valid and enforceable agreement there is no question about that what the nd circuit said is that wayne was given unrestricted right to negotiate whatever contract she wanted even


the marry up plan provides a definition of what is reasonable and customary reasonable and customary is not an amount that is in a book off the shelf somewhere it is the defined term in the plan and it is defined in the plan


there to be careful because there's countervailing policies that are very important you know want to interfere with foreign relations taiwan is one of our greatest allies in southeast asia in a case like this where the tyco government came in and investigated


participation is defined in black's law dictionary as the act of taking part in something such as a partnership a crime or trial and a venture is defined as an undertaking that involves risk especially


so that you can answer my question maybe we decide you're right but it seems at least at this point i'm trying to give deference to the california court of appeals which listen number of things about the trial record that judge could could use their


prosecutor can't write absolutely ok so that i guess i just in a manner stand why you were sort of trying to back away from the assertions made in the sort of up well our point was only that to the extent petitioner has raised this as a batson claim is always


background as that person you're out with no prompting you know just because whatsoever just on the assumption that you're going to be too sympathetic to the front you're conceding that of course the judge can't that absolutely that would be improper so that just takes all the legal stuff out of the way and then we focus on the facts of


dispute that the st indication if it indeed happened i dispute that that has to be read in context with the nd indication later four hours later the st by itself would be sufficient to stop all question should be but there


the courts and we don't have the actual standards here we don't we don't have proof that this family operation went on providing five people and went on for thirty days so it's like an impossibility maybe this can actually happen but what the court in did was it


contact within the last seven years and remained found by luhansk common interests based on the past on time because indeed even in two thousand and seventeen defendant was lying to federal agents


any difference to the law here well in cases where a petitioner such as this one is simply challenging his custody score security classification then we would agree that it


established but i don't i don't think that's what the right has to be i think the right has to be not on those details but to speak on a matter of public concern but you were talking about direct contravention of her orders i mean it's clear that there are


at least disputed issues the fact that they were unhappy about the note they asked her to change it and she refused and then that the note in some way got shredded right is not enough to establish at least for summary judgment purposes that


estate actually anywhere so it's a reverse of nelson where where the issue of the estate was referenced but the other claims were records regarding the video footage which i think is a red herring i'm not sure if someone


whatever requirement is established under the washington cases where the officer stated on cross examination that he did not confirm the warrant in their database they don't have confirmation that the warrant is still


heard because the witnesses didn't know where they were supposed to go you can have all the evidence in the world that establishes from a from the probation office point of view prosecution point of view that he committed an offense


regulations have to include substantive predicates that pretty much dictate an outcome if there are met here these statutes and administrative rules pretty much mirror morsi they're procedural


against him or the reasons for considering segregation none of that occurred here it is undisputed that defendants did not provide mr evans with notice or basic opportunity to be heard defendant simply transferred mr evans


together do and wilkinson also said that there may be more factors but at least those three must be considered so after wilkinson to the extent there was clearly established law as to what


practically any two person conspiracy you have people talk to each other and all about what they want to happen is going to result in this enhanced man and i just don't think that's what it's designed for so you know can you even a


services fraud and that involved in this case admitting a breach of his fight you sherry duty self dealing self profiting and having this conflict of interest with the interests of the trust the


first first of all the only authority that the plaintiff cite for the notion that merely listing someone in the caption is sufficient is rule ten a if you look at the citizens of the courts of appeals and really


ok difference between equal protection class of one in the and the classic racial let's say equal protection is that you know equal protection class when you don't have a class of people who were discriminated against there's only you but there are other people who are treated better than you


the consumer fraud takes the form on the front end in at least four different ways you have the warranty being created not by the warranty company and not by the manufacturer but by the seller the warranty was created by the seller by just


embossed so there is a little difference between what gets installed and what gets delivered to the installers but if it is the same product even though it's before and so on is your posing council correct that since this was a


the course of the from one thousand nine hundred one to at least as of when my last contact before the summary judgment was granted they had my client had been presented with claims that there was absolutely no reason to believe that that was their product so


and two two thousand and nine email to the bank of america complaining by about the fact that they had revoked their line of credit on her house with her and her husband because of the problems with sun trust and sun


that's ok ok what i want to try to convince the panel is that this is an area where the law is well developed by judge kuhn our felt like and it's not necessary to certify the question to the washington supreme court


residence and takes a security interest on any rents and requires you to have a receiver if necessary it takes the loan and turns it into what its purpose was and that is as an investment and commercial


the interest rate but there was no damages that flowed from that following that we received a demand letter from former counsel for miss le duff that outlined her damages and it was all arising out of the


disposition on the basis of a lawful theory that the record supported correct and i think our case losses we can do that i think it does and that's the concession that i'm nervous to make right i i don't want to tell you're not giving away the store here counsel it's a pretty


the state has to respond the state can't let a statement like that go to the jury room and corrected the state did i ask them to correct it it was not corrected nothing happened that's not in the record but they had a duty the charges


that there is still no materiality because mr de la was cross examined quite extensively the judge the district court judge below found he was impeached and shown to be biased and so therefore there was no violation


manner in which the implement yes it is in there with the district court did here the district court looked at the concrete and said it believe that was a dangerous weapon as it was used so yes i think the


weapon has to be wielded right that's different than simply saying every time it doesn't say every time involved use their bare hands it can never be dangerous weapon it says a weapon as i was at the very cover a weapon is something has to be willed it right there so i can


they didn't have a warrant to search that part of the house and the magistrate found that that was a self contained home and that they didn't have a warrant to search it and that their entry into that space to see him come out of number


instead of taking the time to learn whose it was yeah i mean it seems to me if the law says he could open the glove compartment and look at it it's probably also true that he could have opened the backpack to look at it some trying to figure out whether or


safer than trying to search it while leaning into the car because it could have been saw searched in the car in my view so if you'd respond well you know first it wasn't argued below that the officer had that authority it


held that in comparison washington accomplice liability and federal accomplice liability washington accomplice liability is overbroad it is imputed into all washington criminal offenses and essentially i'm making the government's argument


see a band in packages if you were delivering a package you most likely just common sense you would open up the screen door if it was unlocked and walk in knock on the door nobody was there


know this is a huge money making enterprise for them you know as i said millions of dollars individuals spending tens of thousands of dollars on these chips because because it is addictive unquestionably at about the terms


point with that i'd also like to address the materials from the state gambling commission as there was a motion or a request for beautiful noticed those documents should inform the court's decision here i don't believe we ruled on that no it


government witnesses testified about the source of those funds one testifying that the food stamp program is federally funded another testifying that that money comes from u s d a department of agriculture and that can only be spent at


which seems somewhat ludicrous to the extent that boeing actually hired them to the extent that boeing knew exactly who land was and what it was charged with to suggest that we have not informed boeing is


they could have asked for his consent for the limited purpose to go maybe into the glove box to get a paycheck and then to mr perelman say you know what on second thought i don't want you near the car the officers didn't have to allow him back into the car they could have released him after the car had been removed


citizens but what's very remains very puzzling to me is that was under arrest could have remained under arrest and yet the police testimony is that


analyze issues under article one section eight even if the statutes had already met or so and survived first amendment scrutiny so that but that's that's a fourth amendment claim is it not another words if if your client was operating in that gray


and measured against what an objective standard about what he's supposed to do not just his own subject of standard so when it's an objective standard then i have to look at what


hard for us as practicing lawyers and judges to reach any kind of decision on what article one section eight means in this context to expect that officers on the street who called attorneys and gotten advice could


court my name is shot head hawk on behalf of the appellant's was in deportation proceedings and she was married to a us citizen spouse and in those circumstances the question of whether you were inspected and admitted


benchmark so he was judged by malpractise standard


contract is one party to the contract performs and return obligation usually payment is contingent on some future event so we have performance by stalwart in this case and in


evidence but if you if your representation now is that there are no members then that makes it much easier for us and so just related lee i thought you said that under r c w twenty five fifteen whatever it is one sixteen that there


two to forty russ testify that he had one of the best hunting days of his life and then oberndorf invited tony alonzo that same day to hunt the field that's at yard three twenty two mark how it was another person that opened or if invited to hunt


action or omission that itself violates or is alleged to violate it so here you what you have is the exact same set of facts right the installation of the software on the computer so they can spy through and that set of facts precisely supports the e c p a claim and the


exclusion the final point on that there's a claim in the brief that this argument that the common law claims are within the ambit of the exclusion was not raised below hartford supplemental excerpts of record forty seven to forty eight and fifty two to fifty four show you one place where it was raised very clearly


who didn't face any serious danger of self incrimination did he in less here than antelopes case or as in bars case now an envelope the first face prosecution in the future for crimes he does he committed there's none of that here


everybody is it's possible he could be not killed but injured as possible he might be just respected or spit on we have no record that any of those things were going to happen he was in fear that he could be hurt and just a fear of being that he


so at all costs he had to be kept out of jail both for your own protection as a crime boss and for his protection right and the answer is that is what i was relating to him yes so the record is quite clear


torture chambers or things of that nature but in this in this particular social group and in this case the record talks about beheadings on facebook so you could be scrolling your through your facebook and suddenly you're watching somebody getting their head cut


violations all this shows is that israel was a man and a member of the security forces that had a bad reputation if it's not sufficient for the bar to apply just on mere membership what about its assertion


now have a son and so that i think that if you the if you if you compare the two thousand and seven report from the state department which which says no


heat he was ignored about his conditions his medical conditions and then on top of it he you look at it you know that adding insult to injury they're like well why didn't you get medical treatment after release because i was healing inside a prison whereas the other two cases


immigration judge gave for denying the cat claim was internal relocation and argument was and it incorporated its relocation analysis in the asylum context and that entire argument


specifically addresses situations where a spouse or child could apply for a hardship waiver and this provision for investor visas doesn't address any type of hardship


what is the effect of that and the bankruptcy well the effect of it affecting i understand i think the effect of that and this is i think where the court trying to go this is the effect of a they are basically saying that


treatment of solicitation as a lesser offense than either conspiracy or attempt would support that rationale but i think ultimately this is a policy question and this court's precedent makes clear that when the statute is structured as it


remedial action scheme is referenced because the remedial action scheme as far as the districts are concerned has only one sole purpose and that is to protect the california oregon transmission project and maintain its operating limits and if you look in paragraph twenty


conceded that a study of the potential impacts there jointly own facilities was not necessary at and that's what they say in order that's what they say and ordered


demeanor the undersigned rarely if ever has based in negative credibility to terminations primarily on demeanor and is reluctant to do so here


case where the people have just lived in the house forever and just kind of kept shifting formats that they didn't by doing so acquire any amount of new interest or equity or of any


it does lead to the inference that she actually did know what was filed now i mean i take it at the end of the day it's a question for a fact finder determine is there enough evidence to demonstrate that the burden of proof was met i would say that under the circumstances the record doesn't


well you know how did they recognize you knew so well i know them from the good wara and it was only like you said judge rowlands and when he was asked about this inconsistency while


back to in quotes from pretty real id act cases in which an inconsistency had to go to the heart of the claim and i think that there's been a higher standard well it's a higher standard also means that any consistency the board could legitimately rely on had to be a major


one way that the agency or the d h s s rebutted the presumption by the minute you have the burden to show this past persecution that you've satisfied that he's not going to be persecuted


noted in that case the perverse incentive for granting a motion to reopen based on significant change in personal conditions as we have in this case yes we do have a new allegation raised in this case but it's


we've designated as a terrorist organization yes yes i absolutely and we don't we don't dispute that the organization they believe mr cleaver was a member of which was the petitioners tenant we don't just feel that that individual


given that it order for her to register her second child she had to pay five thousand dollars five thousand yuan it's possible there are other fines that she could still be subject


partner to come get off work she gets off the bus he says that he notices suspicious individuals in the in the near distance any wants to avoid them and they say to him don't try to avoid


of her prior persecution of his hands but there's no evidence that that all of a sudden el salvador has become has turned its has turned around on domestic violence it has become a and i don't place


there is that that exists i think is why a r c g came out the way it did on that your honor i just want to point out that that's what this claim morphed into was this vulnerability to have something happen again it's not the way it was presented to the


in all of our tax treaties and there's just too much history so given that then what was the permissible limit of limiting the arm's length standard for the commission


franco class member and she didn't the bonafide doubt is supposed to be informed by observations and interactions and it recognizes that someone even apart from one of those diagnoses might just be acting off might just seem the


policies were implicitly superceded by order six seventy nine but i say last month because last month in response to this court's directive to answer the twenty eight j letter


seventy nine that was the entire premise for granting that continued participation atter the commission never gave the c p c or the interveners the opportunity to consider to rebut that and i think that calls for


out about this in two thousand and eleven these are it's like a chain of events there are links and they're all connected so the fact that he was able to survive not


is readily identifiable because of his tattoos as a former gang member you know and i think that this is not a situation where like an hour to go where the individual was still a gang member this is somebody


greater confusion is as to why there was some type of linguistic distinction i think respectfully your honor i read the statute i mean really statute to indicate that material support is the term of art that does not require any


retire from gangs they were involved in drugs alcohol these youngsters my sister and her husband that's what they help them i do not under and in reading her declaration i didn't see anywhere that say that they went out and recruit people so of what they were doing


in the alternative it could be remanded to the b i m as karen de thief did file a motion to reopen with the b i a based on pereira that was on july seventeenth and that is still pending how should a decision and in fact


they go to it somewhat to credibility they just don't go to the questions of asylum that's exactly what i saw and that did puzzle me but i do see that they accepted all of her facts as stated in their


merits and possible upside of an employment contract actually don't doesn't spend much time arguing the underlying bankruptcy court made an implausible application as you are going to say with these with these arguments raised before the bank


there was probable cause at that point to arrest her yes you know there wasn't there wasn't even why not so there she's hiding in a situation where they're looking for undocumented people why is there probable cause well first she wasn't mentioned the warrant so she so they said you know it was right wasn't


see she's not armed there's three armed ice agents they see her they see maybe she's hispanic looking well we know from case law that's not enough being hispanic looking they can hire and the fact that she's hiding enough well well


not sure if i'm understanding your question but the problem is is that customers were scheduling reservations they were not seeing because bonneville had failed to implement this without notice they weren't seeing drops in


know that revenue analysts that bonneville when they did this sheltering to a reservation that had the discount on it they did remove the discount so it wasn't a redirect it was a little bit different we


my name is rebecca johnson and i'm here on behalf of the national labor relations board to start i'd just like to clarify the standard for obtaining a hearing on post election objections i believe and i briefly say that


and consequently she was ordered removed with a chance to being heard but then to do that we have to look at what happened because that if there's a process that set out that when people


can't effectively review the new the new york to collate social groups and with that i'd also add that the new articulations are a concession of sorts at the that the agency was correct to recognise that as articulated these


courts found that injuries to the family must be considered and in that case there was also no physical injuries to those children neither in the holder as well and so i think the argument that just because there was there is no


in mexico who exhibit erratic behavior or not is not the one presented below not properly exhausted as explained previously i'm happy to do it perform for purposes of this argument it's particular social groups are just critical to giving their


foremost substantial evidence supports the grecian judge and of course terminations that effective alternative remedies that the petitioner has not shown that alternative medications are not available in mexico oh the


this is even under their own standard the gross miscarriage of justice standard the way the board interprets that is whether the the order of deportation would have withstood judicial review at the time that the decision was


the board which a lot of things at the time i'm not sure the board decided the board has never actually the board itself has never actually dealt with the madonna because it's been consistent continually calling this a saint


understand that this was a bond hearing this was not a hearing at which the eligibility for relief was supposed to be addressed but it did come up and it came up sort of in a sideways way and at the urging of government counsel the


conditional plea but the government at this court has realized does have a valuable right to have the matter tried that's the same as the defendant does and as in the singer case which was


court said that it would compare each defendant to the others because in his view that is how thirty five fifty three applies here and then later there's nothing wrong with that with that if that's the first


a railroad car a vehicle or any object in fact the argument here i think is very much like the the argument was presented to this court in winter which is the primary authority relied


that'll make you happier because it's not a very practical problem in this case not not in this case thank you kind of thank you


without sentence he came out with it because he didn't do his job he failed miserably to represent his client in this case was a recommendation of life with before the sentencing judge yes it was


returned to las vegas to face this matter and he's two officers from the north las vegas police department come down to meet arizona and this here the facts account the most in my judgment they walk in to see this man the first


deprived of advisements to which he should have been intitled from the bigger picture point of view over the way this court was running things for part of that time he actually was to product in terms of the custom


flight attendant about drinking and which led to him spitting in her face but after the altercation was over he went back to see he complied with all of our all of the instructions of the flight attendant he didn't


constitutional authority to adopt a new exception to the mandatory minimum sentence so for those reasons your honor the government has requested this court also follow the rationale the logic of the the other six circuits and find that


understand position and i know that he is able to pay the fines that he has the money for that and we're going to get that paid this afternoon when we get back to sacramento assuming the clerk's office here doesn't want to take the money the restitution amount


cheaply but the court rejected that when the government objected and so other then claiming that he could do it himself more cheaply there is no challenge to the bullet in the of the the


spirit court judge to the hearing we would have a better record than we do but on the record that the district court judge was given it was a reasonable conclusion for him to make that if you missed a significant piece of the warrant of the affidavit


that and on the other hand the house is then adapted for use in somebody may or may not be living there at the moment which the shooter doesn't now i would say i would suggest that because


so the question in the case is whether or not the prosecution's comments improper comments during closing argument fundamentally infected the trial the fairness of the


because i think what you have with respect is in effect a council you got the two lines of cases you've got the chronic line of cages and you've got to strip them one of cases but the but the distinction between those two lines of cases is one where


element of the crime to come to the generic enhancement version of it just as they did in taylor when he said well the contrast of california berkeley statute which doesn't necessarily involve the do only with michigan's which does so if we're going to


i mean back up i don't know i didn't try the case your honor all i can say is that from reading the defendant's brief he does not object to any of these instructions and states that they were proper instructions and


prosecutors in state court loose motion to suppress and i'm in california it's fifteen thirty eight point five or whatever and then they bring this same action in state court in federal court because the evidence isn't going to be suppressed


stop sign and he turned and he looked over and saw the defendant briefly look over time and there were window to window that is the driver of the defendant's car was window to window with a police officer and the defendant looked over briefly and then looked straight ahead


in fact finder are certainly entitled comes the common sense conclusion that when someone has both drugs and a firearm on their person the gun is present to further drug trafficking and the cases where they have not found sufficient evidence such


provided in discovery the witness was available i had the witness on my witness list and simply chose not to call him because i thought it was just me on my view as to shortly in my view i certainly could have got information helpful to my case but it would have


was involved in the subsequent contacts you know what i'm saying is almost position is that if the first they would have done it and joe said hey this is great and then james comes back and says we're cool now i'm working my guys


you've drawn a distinction that i'm simply i managed and i think the distinction or what difference it makes since true the instructions make reference to two entrapment requiring that the inducer be a government agent i'm not sure how the point in


discovery to find out whether this guy was an agent was made and deny when i believe it was about seven months before trial was in july two


here from the government at this time


the agent was the case agent was not the case agent and i apologize your honor i would like that how would you describe this person this is a person this is an agent who worked on the case this is the person who will i believe testify at trial


there cited with approval and what those cases say is that it does start with a complaint and in fact benson and venus are the cases that northern relied upon when they said you win this court said that you have consistently held that a speedy trial clause


more precisely is this we asked the district court to determine a specific question with respect to the reasonableness of mr biddies belief the district court starts out the decision in effect


basis for the guilty plea in order to obtain a sentencing enhanced meant in our brief we argued two issues first the court applied the wrong sentencing guidelines and second that the court had failed to apply the proper evidentiary


insurance company and i shall present is in order to be excused from its obligation under the policy and if it can't or if it doesn't know if there's no finding a president that is obligated to indemnify and to cover the third party beneficiaries


has not been and offer of excuse or an affirmative defense raised an affirmative defense of excuses being raised and no one the insured


exhibit fifty seven i got an updated version which the judge chose to accept i don't know if the instructions were the same i don't know what was different about it and there's no way to tell and under the circumstances i don't


but we don't think that's true here because of the statue of limitations the act of state doctrine we're just saying something that's important here antigua we lived on the district courts on appeal ruling in two thousand that it's


any rule other than the the general rule seven that allows you to make motions if that's actually not the way it first arose the way first arose was in an opposition memo to other motions that have nothing to do with sanctions they


involved that we were dealing with look alike methamphetamine that the drug quantity originated with the government with law enforcement that we had an unconsummated transaction that the defendant did not have the money to even pay


failed to undertake an individualized case by case consideration of the extent and quality of mr calvinist cooperation now in this case the amount of cooperation was disputed neither side presented evidence only argument regarding cooperation


this was a case where the defendant had to prove that he was in the throughout the government's case they stated well he could testify and he could clarify that he wasn't required to testify but in this case he was he


performed very well i've lost money and wright has told me that i was going to get these great returns so how do you win the maximum damages if that were the sole theory be a million dollars and you lost all the money that i invested well there could be a motional distress


intoxication defense was a viable defense they said it in fact the jury might have the jury believed hofmann is a great example of of the kinds of acts that you look at when you're looking at whether or not intoxication defense can


coming to pick up the files to fix this and they spend the whole next two or three days filling filling in marriage certificates and trying to fix up the applications you so i just didn't get to all of them which is why if you look at ryan mangling his application the part of the


the reality is is that what defense counsel is asking the court to do is that when an officer pull someone over for whatever reason talks to the media in a consensual matter or even a civil traffic stop and the individual has a weapon on their person that somehow the officer supposed to go through a


was directly related to a direct active effort to take advantage of the state imposed by california


program he'd been in for some time pending being taken into the program being sent to to the butler some time later he drank the court determined that he was a danger to the community


engine picture it so there's no quotes around it there's certainly no exclamation point at the end of soul as reflected in the mark that the plaintiff claims prior to the your client's purchase of the


establish that they didn't result in seizures of contraband that then were part of a larger prosecution were part of a larger investigation or simply in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion resulted in no


necessarily preclude the jury from finding that well we don't think that he knowingly falsified the police report on count two that has different outcome it right and particularly in light of his trial testimony


did your did you object at that time we didn't object because we were literally cut off from that question in the witness was told to get off the stand did you make an offer of proof as to what your questioning would have been if you'd been allowed to continue questioning we never


scouts of america and specifically to merit badge requirements the videos are intended to be marketed to boy scout groups throughout the united states among other things defending falsely represented that he had a licensing agreement with the


that immigrations customs official or customs and border patrol didn't stamp his passport on his return to the country in the defendant's reply brief he makes clear no that's not the argument that's being made versus prosecutorial misconduct it's that the prosecutor


belief seven and i just wanted to read from line decision now does deposition testimony however belies her declaration contrary to not as a declaration the she observed a sudden accidental escape of water her deposition testimony


it's not a question it just isn't it's just not a question but let's talk for a minute but i wonder if you could answer his question a little more directly ok there was a lot of forget about the cases for a second forget about the standard we're all


over time if there's any other questions ok thank you thank you


away when the paramedics showed up and talked to them and then fell into a coma and he's an eighty one year old man who has multiple problems i mean i don't know that we can accept it is just one hundred percent a given especially


claim this confrontation clause violation was harmless so i hear what you're saying about he had an opportunity to prove his alternative theory his theory of defense but actually where is the actual prejudice when


rodney and also so rodney identified petitioner as one of the shooters both in the six pack and also at trial he never once equivocated yes the recent issue about his ideas to this johnny clarke person he never once


just rely on rodney's testimony i think that the prosecutor's closing argument is evidence of how the case was presented to the jury and ultimately how they would have thought about it and there's a ninth circuit supporter believe o'connor


intensive question and or sank intensive in a seems there's a dispute a fact if one considers the declarations that's why it's so pivotal and i speaking for myself but that's why it's so pivotal to know whether or not


say well first of all the university did caution her with regard to that what's the evidence with regard to the evidence is clear that they they asked her not to do that but remember that the university is bound also by the national labor relations act which says and the california


they have to plausibly plead that they would have been eligible for it in their thirteen twenty sixty petition do they have to plausibly plead that or is it just something we wait and get to once we finish the other stuff


think it's important to know i think i believe she was about eighteen when she actually played guilty but nevertheless she did answer yes or no to most of the questions until you get to the end which she did


right that that is the overriding consideration right that is the overriding consideration here are the same decision was brought to regulate to the attention of the district court two weeks


i would have bought the shoes even though i liked them they were cheap and they fit me nicely i just find that extremely implausible well as i said and i'm just honestly speaking for myself i understand and i


i think it's understood that consumers inherently do not trust m s r people maybe would say she doesn't trust the m s n she wouldn't have bought it and that is what's required to put up a false advertising claim that


misrepresentation why how was it deceptive why is it deceptive and there's another telling comment in the reply brief on that exact subject and i'm reading now from the reply brief it page three the sack clearly


the plaintiff's argument is that this is a virtually impossible burden that would largely wipe out every cause in cases your honor with all respect that's an answer that straight out of nine hundred ninety five it's not in the the


account he did not have the so you believe that that's an appropriate defense is just that they had sufficient evidence in the record to establish that in cynic's clothing that's a lie a witness is was not arris not your position


the bankruptcy court code claiming that it's of in consequential value a benefit to the state which was opposed by mr greve in the bankruptcy court granted that motion but with regard to the money the chapter seven


his bankruptcy and and clear to me whether at the time he sold the hillsborough house and his wife executed the agreement for the newport


charged with you know in fact what is it the overwhelming majority of people charged with selling crack cocaine are black defendants this took place in the south central yeah i mean ask you this was this is this something that can be argued in


approach of look in the camera so my client can see it on you tube we assert they are owed nothing we assert that they're worn out a claim should be granted summary judgment in our favor that does not mean that nothing is in controversy that is the


good morning good morning they please the court i'm richard look i represent some of the defendants mr mangan and also raven are thinking and are possible i'll see before i get all hired into the complaint i just want to ask you a


counsel from the beginning of the case and even if she was personally ignorant counsel would always know of a possibility of other insurance coverage that would be why requested the national union policy


nash i mean marcia should say marsh's attorney was reaching out to clancy her per her asset protection lawyer about having her testify for deposition so there was evidence that she was going to participate in this


callahan this holistic approach was need a good deal i don't think so but i don't think that's the correct prism on the garcia or garcia lopez the prisoners whether he had applause a reason to motivate him to demand a trial not whether the court thought it was


clearly here he cannot because as the district court found it you are twenty two he was nothing but a traveler he was in cambodia on a tourist visa he was traveling around the country staying at numerous hotels and guesthouses


by looking at the totality of the record first it's clear that mr morello's requested counsel before he was in front of the immigration judge and that was on the form he filled out in advance this serves to show the state of mind that mr mehlis


statement that the defendant really relies on the two fifty line twenty one all of that is a committed crime what do you make of your own i believe that's a correct statement of the law and of the facts of this case so the united


fully served or only partially served as counsel didn't the judge as if they referenced the fact that he had considered the thirty five fifty three a factors that he thought that this wasn't an appropriate sentence and quote having done


mean the way the d a characterized he says he's a good drunk driver and there is a difference if he had there is evidence that he had driven under the influence twice before either of those events involved erratic driving


tried to escape a police officer while he was extremely drunk so it sounds like i mean i guess two points one is it seems like the strongest evidence of his state


opinion that there should be two people at all times is not consistent with his own testimony that alien smuggling and drug smuggling are sensually the same and he testified that an alien smuggling all you need is one person the captain


reference to it and i just want to quickly touch on that topic it should not be disputed at all that the defendant's own admissions would come in and that his co defendants statements were


adopting the second circuit approach i think it might your honor of course as i've mentioned i would i would welcome any opportunity to submit something in a briefing if you think it's appropriate but i think even as i've mentioned even if you were to drop the approach is that the seven circuits


by the agents to mr gar and on october twenty second two thousand and fourteen the day that mr karr was arrested it wasn't just these statements pressuring him to pin the blame the agents set out the story that they believe mr garcia


because it's totally goes to the bone of the cooperator to lie and i think that's absolutely right and i cited schoenberg i cited philips again the larson case i think makes that point i mean if we can't you know if


even on the jackson standard well your honor i don't think that the california courts ever be choir to any specific type of evidence so i don't know that i can point the


woman who was a homemaker who has never belonged to any sort of group political group she's raised her kids she's never held a job how do we review that i'm sorry how do you really how do we possibly review


into the constitutionally protected interest alleged here or the court can follow dinan which of the constitutional interest is assumed and we jump right to counsel or not guilty we argue that there is no constitutional protected interest


as they looked for those raw materials in the purse that defendant hernandez had stolen earlier in the night evidence of a common modus operandi among the defendants in the months leading up to the time they still nailed


no sir it is not in that bar that is not in the prior are amazon and the board cited to some sections and the prior art and when you go to those sections you see that those two things a user input and then the


on our knowledge and intent when we brought suit and i think that's an important distinction that i'd encourage the court to take a close look at


transmitting a communications interface a display device a processing unit electronically receiving combining the electronically received image with an image related information displaying


that not enough either to come within k s r which may not quite require a motivation to choose among certain kinds of known all known substitutes or in any event


the concept is simple but it's still not abstract v if i can if you give me get a minute to go into the background of where we were technologically when this invention was created


appendix that's with this record and bascomb did and this court reversed that is that's the opposite of what one is supposed to do when reviewing claims for subject matter eligibility purposes instead one is supposed to review the claims as a whole


two basic b r m schemes have been employed secure containers and trusted systems the patent itself which the but which the jury was at being asked to consider and set up a difference between two approaches we then had to explain to the jury what


program that was the one that was being monitored that's taking the same program a construction was members of the members of the community running the


expert does say and i'll just quote the language it is sometimes difficult to find clean attack free training sets for training and intrusion detection model well that's not talking about paragraph nine this is an


suction ok so when the bottle reversed if yours would draw ours water those people are not yes dropping a bucket into the well and holding it up i suppose that they are dropping a bucket into the


separate them by one hundred to two hundred meters eight to sixteen times worse and treat them as if they were from the same place that's a disaster that's not obviousness that's madness there is no way on earth that a person of ordinary skill would have done that and


they only say they assert that you can follow that and you don't explain how and the only time they explain anything about how it is with respect to things that they've done years after the patent three methods they don't even claim were taught in the past i think that that's simply not enough


facts i first thought did they say there were eighteen or twenty emails that said there are eighteen or twenty communications of which these six were from mr mariani and those are documented in the bullet points in pages three four and five


none of those cases did the court analyze this jurisdiction question hundred twenty five all one they all refer to twenty four fifty five and so that indicates that the statute of limitations provided them


architecture in the claims in the claims of attention and the claims are on the claims recycle aspects of the architecture if we look at the construction of controlling the rowdy first it requires a designated


servers and then it goes on to talk about how media servers might be placed here they might be placed there you might achieve different goals with one or the other none of that is resave it in the claim there's nothing in the claim that


invention here you see a description of internet functionality and in particular internet streaming content functionality using ip multicasting that the inventors here didn't claim to invent


problems of total abuse of telephone systems in controlled environments dr for is specifically stated that the two for three pat itself was not limited to the prison context so there's no reason to say oh


specific example there's a generic there's a teaching i'm age eight thirty forty one which states the lengths of the compartments of the ring change of shape device are chosen to give the required performance ratios of the length of the first and second compartment are


now but why as i don't understand we're talking about commercial success here so i mean the board considered and considered it to be commercial success but they were just looking at not whether that evidence


crimes it's hard to get a bright line necessarily from the cases and your argument is that ultimate point error is probably the fastest support for what you're what you want to say


why in bits of the government hydro presents their product while not complying with the governmental requirements for a bit by explaining why it meets the particular requirements for the


why isn't this case exactly the same thing it's an abstract idea of doing a bunch of different tasks in a really efficient way and maybe you couldn't do it with a mainframe or you can do it with one computer but you put a bunch of computer


claim is how do you simply watch the remainder do you need to do something more than push a single but there is no reason to think that you do and or it goes on to explain why that is so if you look at joint appendix ten the board focuses there on the


inconsistent because on the one hand they formulate a claim construction that requires that a layer actually be formed and not just that it be formed but that they prevent the reactance from


have attachments which is that appendix one twelve which is the letter explaining that several of the other students against whom so your allegations were made and who like mr sweeney denied those allegations


next case and you can explain because i think it's crystal clear that that's a direct misrepresentation to this court that you're making we disagree your honor i apologize if the court


in our favor so for example while substantial evidence doesn't support a legal issue remember the issue is a question of law and in in the situation where for example the court claim construction work for example if


to the u s and even if we had done that that would be effective because our customers also themselves of the united states they sell to other companies in asia so it sounds as if what the other side wants to do is to create a duty on us to go to our customers customers and warn


tell you i would never make an order like that or involved ordering someone to do something i have a conflict of interest even where i not sort of person that i was afraid of said i would never get an order for that so how how how can it how can it be the


unexplained in this record mr morse and was not provided that relief what he was provided instead was a reconstruction you know procedure where the agency said well if we


response to a decision that you know you get back pay even if you are prepared to issue an order from movable and instead took the cash retirement the the agency's response is going to say no longer time if you're


short for the new case of what i will answer your question but just the predicate leading up to your question was that well now there's been some exhaustion but that's only with respect to the request for a


to combine issues and the other issues with respect to one twenty one hundred descriptions the size if i could that which was based on a contingency as i understand it from the briefing that that the court accepted a certain


interest as you allege in your brief as the header on page twenty six when you say were not challenging the sale of the claims but were challenging defense decision to exclude them from the distribution of the proceeds that's not an accurate header doesn't really


and where the word container really came from was at the appendix a seven twenty there their counsel said what can we be certain of when we hear these names in that claim we hear canisters cabinets compartments well essentially they are all some


stachelberg was talking in a sense about a shop vac that might take up some water and particles if you're cleaning your workshop floor and had a spill you might have wood chips and water on there so it was knocking down particles and it showed you a way


out it clarified the law and established that that two part test for male could be as applied in computer implemented claims so bilski doesn't mention a computer at all mayo doesn't mention a computer at all so the question


results when mr gonzales talks about is the better results are achieved not because i'm just searching a smaller subset of websites mr gonzales writes about searching all websites on the internet but the


computers the simple article that we put in the record also shows that so backslidden that's incorrect i also want to address the fact that that's just not required by any of the claims so the claims here require a single


well how the federal circuit your court has has done but i think that's a very different thing i think that what happened in bascom and d d r the two cases that you are describing and he comes out in the way that you describe it is there was a


bottom circulators yeah but it shows this it shows the claimed invention which is the box and it large in the context of a larger optical system the use of these switches reside in


words ok we have a number of cases before sunday we have four cases that have been submitted on the briefs in the court is attending to those two those cases we have two cases before us on oral argument


teaches in some instances the invention could be practiced in a financial manner but our point again is that under the law as set forth in there in a mature recent decisions we have to look at the claims and if the claims


they say the board didn't interpret it to require asphalt saturation they did not do not know the perp or did too well have that's a question but they certainly argue that in their view the board claim interpretation


also point out that even if we are going to regard dr byrne hours of treating physician for sake of argument and i know we've discussed whether he has that status or not that the question remains as to whether this error


would be covered if that's what the case resulted in the parties the in the underlying case disputed what compliance constituted they disputed the extent to


attorney's fees court costs and other defense costs so the stipulation was in fact an agreement regarding the scope and the application of paragraph twenty nine not simply oh in agreement


cite in your brief it was a chaotic fight and you know the record of what happened at the trial there was a trial it was eight days long lots of witnesses testified and you can make a good


strauss testified had had a schooner street but it was thirty minutes away in a small town there's no way these officers would have mistaken a place they've been surveilling for months to be thirty minutes away they knew the house they were going to search and they searched that house we


insinuation in that phone call was that he was referring to getting money from drug trafficking so although that the truck wasn't technically registered to him he was seen with it he made reference to it and we feel that there was enough evidence for the jury to infer that


good morning and may please the court and your gold for the united states the district court properly applied the criminal history category rule of four b one point one b for three reasons the plain language


now been futile but the exhaustion requirement at the federal court level is something that was not squarely addressed by the underlying court of appeals so i believe that issue is separate anough from the futility argument which may have been decided but


school professor sutton taught me which was that you take the plaintiff as you find ok the problem here is that the district court applied that kind of a late meant


can only use three not seven and therefore your number is the number there therefore the only number that was legally consistent with the settlement agreement was b p s number and you know that's an independent reason to to affirm the decision that


stock sale or an asset sale that's her quote and it goes on for two pages basically saying the same thing now in the end the briefs that we pointed out in the twentieth letter the


it would say there was a right to permit in this case so long as we met all the elements and we were ready and able to meet those and second we would say that there is at least the right to go through the application process we were denied even that and so your


the court counsel my name is men young grouping and i represent the united states attorney's office for the western just give louisiana i would like to start at the end with the bare bones argument i think that with all due respect to the


and so i don't think like they raise for the i'm not i'm not i'm not convinced if you waiver argument but go on well and if i can get to my final point there they're barred as well and it's much more clear that they're barred from this


benefits that may be payable so i think you have some there's at least some arguable point why didn't the hospital say well you can't do that you can't take this money back from moscow look at this section of the plan a level point zero


have standing to bring any suit in this action because section eleven thirty two limits the people who can sue to participants and beneficiaries mischievous counties neither of those is a little more debatable as to whether or not mr cleveland has standing to sue


it's on the border or not i think this is important if you have a violent drug trafficking organization ordering a hit on someone or giving the green light to someone who wants to go take care of it i think it's reasonable suspect that the target is could be involved or there could be some


that's that's correct your honor and that's what they that's what they had to go on which obviously was not a lot but the agent was familiar with the investigation the agent was familiar with the area in glendale a drive on the west bank so and they knew they were looking for a silver infinity one that was one of the


claims that are alleged to be other than at the time that they filed this motion they say this arbitration agreement covers all f l s cycling's


key house here that is the greywolf house as the pictures show runs right next to a public sidewalk and one could even stand on the public sidewalk and and reach out and touch as garage door or come very close to it from the public sidewalk and so


there and it was about half of the production he doesn't say when you know and as it came online now if it's one thing if if if if you came online and


that report i love that that had cautionary language and trying to dispell in the days before he disagreed with the characterization and again the case was clear on that point which we've cited that as long as the data is there in the in the financial status which


also specifically incorporates the terms of the plan so it's the release of human is clearly indicating that it is to be read in conjunction with the plan and and that which is exactly what was done because the he was afforded the necessary or is


legislature this decision should not be vacated it was very fact specific the court determined based on all the allegations gracing the secretary of state that the plaintiffs could not


start four hundred eighty months whatever that would be forty years and no i don't think oh i don't remember so i know that one of the problems was it was this kind of consecutive sentences i believe the ultimate sentence was was four hundred eighty years and of course this court


protective order against her children her children were able to visit her and she is not subject to the mandatory period of supervised release she got a very sweet deal in exchange for her testimony and the offer to


would sign that i did receive it and that certainly would be something if this case were to come back before this panel and we were looking at another substitute player though in the same circumstances in the school board to not do anything between now and then


in addition going back to the question about you know is there a fact is you are not in this case out of fact issue a genuine dispute of material material fact the school board provided annual training to all of its


along trying to uphold a summary judgment i just think when you look at all the evidence that if you ask her and her deposition why don't you go tell your father yes and she said because he said i was braided killing she said my dad i didn't want my daddy to kill


circuit to begin with but before we even get there if there was no new independent claim added on the third amended complaint you lose perhaps your honor you're the one who would decide that i would respond to your question and the other


selected to file ation of the precept that jurors may maintain religious scruples against the death penalty so long as they are able to uphold their both and follow the law these are the errors we propose to address today unless the court prefers otherwise


record that it had a short conference with the defense and there was a matter on which he was going to allow them to make a private proffer on the record at a minimum we think that remained is required to it further address what the district court knew and didn't know and


fired a single shot at ricky mack intending to murder mack the bullet missed mack that hit an unintended victim toyah harrell injuring her in the hand soon the jury ended up convicting brady of attempted second degree murder of


but we spent the bulk of our time address heat so let me come at it this way is there going to be anything at trial that's proven that we haven't already heard about because the question i just disability is like what is the trial going


testified to but actually i mean that fits your argument i mean because your argument is that it was pure negligence in this case correct that your honor and here's the here's the problem with with taking and it had some verses of which your answer is here with


called is that in the record is all i'm asking i believe that some of the nurses attempted to testify that no one testified to any specific incident of when someone else was in the bubble and taken to the


not a request for noon issue here and i would agree with that judge there definitely was a request not to allow the testimony but then i think after the judge said i'm going to go ahead and allow it you just have to cross on it i think at that point that was when mr saucers additional comments


two thousand and fourteen search was done so they're not exactly overlapping he seeking new documents that wouldn't have been responsive but as i understood the motion to remand in this action


the the distance the transporting was going to entail in fact at the very beginning of the sentencing hearing the trial court judge speculated that if there was evidence in the record that mr maldonado show is simply going to go


and so deeply rooted and traditional in the histories of our nation that civilized society basically couldn't exist without its recognition that issue i actually was an issue in


deals with one thing which is convicted child sex offenders regardless of whatever their position or assessment is by the state and they have to register by the state if that they meet that condition then the ordinance applies to them one and all


fact that a district judge may say you can go physically wherever you want to does not would never conflict with whether you can live somewhere within fifteen hundred feet and so there just is no legitimate justification appreciate your time


plenty of objecting in one like the lawyers were asleep but they didn't object to any of this mention of couriers cell heads or whatever and obviously plays into the standard review but tell us how that transpires here in


will what level of evidence will withhold scrutiny and review for sufficiency there's a difference between that and the government putting on compelling evidence to actually get a jury of twelve people to make a conviction they could i guess what i'm saying is if


want to contradict what the city attorneys just say well i would submit to you that he was argumentative confidential and i think the fact that the district court found that to be the case to then rule that the law is not clearly established is inconsistent and also your


lawyers quite clear that we are up on de novo review of the subject matter jurisdiction issue and again to the to the court's point we absolutely believe we were entitled to the rule for rue fifty six does provide procedural


did not know any way shape or form call for a merger at any particular time or require that the company be sold liquidated go public or any other liquidity of that at any particular time that was a wholly discretionary


decision on the part of a board that we allege is conflicted for the benefit of the controller who could take a quick profit off the table that can be the incentive for private equity firms the courts recognize it


in a tribally controlled school if you have agreement and it does not go your way with the school board it can be appealed to the b a that is my understanding of thirty eight point nine three three eight page


cricket and instructional standards saying you have to teach to that standard and he didn't he taught to that standard and yet he was fired so if that's a political well and his argument certainly around and also to make clear


vocational person being hired because they wanted to ensure that a person with the proper credentials was going to be hired again there is no such issue here the federal government retained


certainly acknowledge there is some oversight audited financial financial issues but when it comes to disciplinary issues the federal government has absolutely no involvement whatsoever at the curriculum the same your


inconsistent with denying coverage at a later time for example insurer may undertake the defense and fair that's reassuring reservation of rights i would consider that an implicit waiver she wouldn't even have that we had and expressed an explicit contractual waiver


actual alibi and that even if they could have provided some generally helpful evidence testimony that that testimony would not have been deemed credible and this was a reasonable finding by the state court of appeal if you


elections is going to burden people who are less well off the seventh circuit noted that in frank's case expressly by saying that it's just really high rates of poverty rather than a racial group that explains the differences in that in


to work with the hypothetical so the mayor of san francisco says look everybody i'm going to spend the entire day on the radio i'm a knock on every door i can to get out the vote for the democratic party and the mayor modesto says i'm not going to do that


same office with no absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be sharing an office space they're not the same position they both need private meeting areas to meet with students on especially the school behavior health stuff specialist but


responsibility to establish an absence of facts showing something else and i didn't say that i should let's just we're taking the four corners of what's alleged in the complaint what other inference could one rationally draw from those


different than the public interest in verifying that follow up is occurring hence i think you have a much stronger argument this this is just me speaking here i mean you're absolutely right i'll just finish if i could when you talk about the interest in knowing whether there are repeat offenders is there a cluster


unconscious meant that he was resisting the problem as i look at that tape and it doesn't show resistance it may well because there's five people on top of that he's punching the officers underneath but he says i stop resisting when i was


officers notice that's the whole idea behind this they need to know if they're violating clearly established law so get to give us what's your best go so i think our best case is bernard vs theobald officer theobald was also a las vegas metropolitan police department


asked them to do the work right and if that's however they yes but that's not this case the case is about employees trading for themselves and i'm trying to figure out how exactly does it benefit the employees your clients to take


arbitrary decisions and other arbitrary decisions where the hierarchy is that the st two are supposed to be you know from more credence so your honor i think the


the state of new york i can't render an opinion about what new york statute says or doesn't say but if that language is neither are we but of course we look at analogous statutes and cases oh sure i mean the language is certainly different as between the new york


permission to find mr von tobel guilty at the end of his waffling back and forth and then he thinks to himself well you wouldn't be here if you didn't do something that's the kind of statement that really gave him permission to say i'm going to find him guilty


hypothetical evidence that the state can bring in such as jurors testimony and things like that could we also stands for the proposition that this is a really heavy burden and a really hard presumption to rebut and i see


shorter and didn't need as many witnesses and likely why the jury did not deliberate for long because again we have the sex charges which you know likely stated that there was


it doesn't tell us what happens it tells us that that bad things will happen to the to the insurer to the insurance company to change the policy but it doesn't tell us how it goes which is that that's an open question as they look at the days it could be last and eyestrain court might decide to


the doctrine that you need to show there's an inadequate remedy a law to allow equitable remedies and that's a requirement federal court even when we're sitting in diversity and even when the state court state now provides something else i would disagree with you


or the inadequate remedy a law would be abrogated do you agree that california could choose to do that they could if they did it explicitly abrogate those principles yes and i think it would as if the woods court made made clear then why would that create


supreme court would do when you're looking at guaranty trust and this court's decision count but with no call to respect judge callahan i must i ask you if we get to the point where we have to


appeal case where the plaintiff went to trial under the labor code for unpaid wages for damages there was a mistrial they then came back and said we're going to dismiss our labor code


else's ground so in the advertising context i don't believe there's distinguishing crowns everybody just uses pictures of smiling children because that's the ultimate market source those who matter well what i'm saying is


the physicians in this case work extensively with physician assistants in the same field in the same area and or as a factual matter they they would be like the doctor who is supposed to supervise


out why you thought it was too late other than what we were asked to never went back to the judge when the motion was filed and asked the deadline for identifying experts ok and i read it as being that we


again at the beginning of the next semester and the response was in the context of ongoing communication with the club members and your client never saw th except across campus and at


understand but then i look at what happened in nine and that was nine months because of the victim's own contribution to the delay it wasn't the school it wasn't the educational institution that caused the delay it


to the same standard as represented like against that if they choose to represent himself in court for whatever reason they don't have to abide by the rules and all i can see is a carve out for an issue with respect to


universities will offer adult education it's non degree seeking it's not it's not it's not for credit but you have to pay some kind of a feat let's suppose it's fifty dollars let's suppose that a university is offering a course in spinoza for fifty dollars but they


ruling the district court thought that the vested right was larger than that at a minimum it's fairly debatable not every error of state law has constitutional magnitude and that that's a key point but and that's a question but an


the substantial evidence question even before us at this point because i think it a lack of substantial evidence would be a basis to set aside the decision but we can't there's no live controversy over that all we have is the damages i don't think so because the district


right or preclusion of equable contribution to the monies that travelers paid to defend and to settle a case there are three principal arguments that liberty surplus raised


a duty to defend we're not liable for settlements and so here the cases show that equitable contribution is only available when there is a breach of a duty


there is to duties at issue here one is the duty to defend one is the duty to indemnify there was no duty to defend because we couldn't defend because of the corporation's code now there's arguments why


distinction between the rule eleven requirements because this is a state case and so what we're following is the mandate of boy what did it what did we ask at the time we asked whether he understood the rights he was giving up whether he was doing so freely whether he


she had to be sitting in a particular chair in order to be working and i understand that but you didn't get a tentative start date is on the rd the tendered to start date was clearly indicated as to the tentative date on which you will actually begin showing up in the


business she's called into a room and given oddly enough a performance review and a terminations notice that absolutely no idea from july forward that she was considered to be a probationary employer


is a default judgment at least that's what i thought it was until i register we agreed that a default judgment is litigating and on the merits well it's not actually litigated which is what is required in b and b


riddle said we're looking for i believe the testimonies we're looking for a certain type of person outside of the outside of the company and identify that person by gender i think there are two it one is the statement he made to the


dominated the general unsecured to unify ninety seven percent of the creditor pool so the only people that are benefiting from that would be the administrative claimants and that just didn't seem like a very satisfactory way to go for the trustee and that show


against mr lopez known as the nonmoving party it did so by placing the burden of proof on him rather than the on the government and its so despite this court's prior order finding a material issue a genuine issue of material fact on functionally the same record


that he says repeatedly that while he may not remember the specifics of the details he stands by the veracity of those claims and what that means is nothing in the declaration was controverted we can't hypothesize that there be a lack of evidence when


mitigation evidence presented at such we believe that the outcome of this appeal issue when measured under the standards of imposed by the d p a must be favorably determined for lopez based on the arizona supreme court's


the arizona supreme court finding that lopez medication evidence could have been a trial court could have found that mitigation evidence presented by love that lopez had been refuted and this record demonstrates that the errors in the supreme court


was my next point yes as you find in many of these cases one lawyer doesn't do his or her job the family comes in and they say yeah we were happy we were poor but we were happy we didn't have any problems there was


and found that there was sufficient evidence that that should be the end of the story


saying yeah he said he went up and helped put her to death but the question was malice was it a malicious killing and the details from the confession were significant in bringing in that verdict and i


i would like to add parent that actually that's both the opening brief and the reply brief alleged due process violations without addressing whether a liberty interest is at stake within a removal proceeding there must be due process of


says to the contrary so what the judge would have to find here is that it is impossible to find an impartial jury not that he would do a better job and in fact who's right is that who's right is what for the right to an impartial jury


where perfectly innocent communications between the lawyer and the client are held and yet the order requires that they be turned over without an analysis as to the particular conversation of the particular communication and that really is


act and are recognized by the act of eight hundred sixty six which the supreme court itself has said in many cases recognize preexisting rights which must be protected by the federal government the reason your honor i would suggest that the


so if someone were disrupting court proceedings during the trial for example as your honor mentioned that could be a basis for contempt another basis for contempt and one that both this court and the supreme court of explored is in the context where a party has


the jury and maybe that's one of the fundamental parts of the sixth amendment it's certainly possible that all the jurors agreed she took my each of the three times the government claims but it's also possible given the instructions that


claim is simply that the district court was required to give non mutual and your question was right to the heart of that non mutual defense of collateral stoffel effect to the ruling that their trade dress has to be the same in every case they can have a


factors therefore and the nature of the reasons for the enhancement of our indicate that that's a serious circumstance in which the twenty year or


person can get access to otherwise that are now i think probably had a commission is this this or i mean why did this order need to do anything it doesn't matter that it did anything beyond allowing these


drug deal and they asked for read back a detective kaiser's testimony on the crack cocaine on in the shoe box if this were such a clear cut case


illegally that he didn't he didn't have a visa from the state department but don't be confused by that the real issue was what's in the elements but the opposing counsel are doing this that don't elements were not elucidated because the permission to


correct yes of the three scheme she was convicted and i think is that by the with really pointing out she was convicted consistently with respect to the operation of pacific bank calm for the period of september of two thousand and all of the evidence i've just


misery they has lived in the united states for twenty two years she has three children who are u s citizens and her husband is a lawful permanent resident she left the united states for only two days when the government tries to parole her into the country


morning your honor it's me it please the court my name is linda went land and i represent the respondents abilene in these hideous appeal and i would like to start off by just answering the question that i believe judge they may


those arguments so that's why it denied the petition for review rather than dismissing it but when it was specifically considering the expedited removal order and not you know any subsequent arguments arising after that order it said


it's never expressed the stated second of all the simply not true this record made a specific finding to the contrary there is no legal authority and none is cited that requires a court a district court to examine certify deposits


moreover moreover the preliminary injunction that was entered by the court in at least one respect contradicts the scope of protection that the point it's requested


the common requirements under summary judgment is the fifty six f requirement which is when the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to review the full record of relevant materials the summary judgment determination is deferred until those materials can be reviewed


this to say or at least anyway because i can read about five but a way to read it is to say that under eleven nason action is defined


complexes and my point is that no proceeding is relevant in jury in terms of finding out what the prior conviction was except for the proceeding of the prior conviction so the only thing that we can


fifty four hours i'm unfamiliar with the relation back after amendments have been made so i would have got agree that if that happens in twenty fifty fourth which are still governed by the same rules of civil procedure should be the same situation here twenty four i don't see how you can complain about him being deported to


his twenty year old history of child sex offenses and he did have such a history and there were some indications of more recent indications of sexual misconduct however mr policy has none of that t m is controlling


message that the california legislature has directed them to deliver and so long as there is a politically accountable official who has the power to ensure that they do that


conditions exist here first it is true that the government sets an overall message but the supreme court in your hands did not say that that was fish


said effective control so the real question is is how much less than that it's also effective control and here we've got the approval of that that jets and we have the annual report and we you know the government knows


frawley had signed a report on behalf of the marketing committee saying this is a wonderful program and she said therefore i'm not going to do anything about the pass we need if this goes


deportation context i mean this is a primary challenge i say ok you've got it wrong in the first instance i don't even have you to rely on we're going to decide that that is one aggravated felony and therefore it applies to you and


somebody was injured it doesn't matter whether it was great injury or not just that there was an injury which connotes the use of force and then my response to that is is that injury was obviously disputed because the great


but the court listed for correctional officers and i think fairly rather i can infer from the charge that the force or violence was directed to those four correctional officers not against themselves but i don't believe that the language says that


two points first on your honor in response to the courts to comment about cases questions about cases in the opening phrase exact language of the statute is cited at the top of page seventeen and the cases that i've relied upon are discussed on both


happened and if the city owns the land then that injunction should be sitting there on the day that's the site because the city's had seventeen years to resolve this problem and they haven't done it and mr paulson should get some benefit of the work he's


do what else is the party supposed to do and that evidence was before the judge and certainly he must have looked at it and said you know what let's make spends all the foundations they're all the evidence i need and nobody's saying anything on the other side nobody even tried instead i've got a


still they were still able to test for drugs in this particular case but the sample had been tampered with the probation officer testified that in addition to talking to the lab in the collective experience of police and office that this man that the


court i mean mr chavez did file some material with the district court clerk indicating that he'd completed service but it sounds to me like that actually wasn't true i think that it


made a particular decision that's being challenged as not consistent if it wasn't compelled to by the senate it's still a decision they made it would seem that would be something the court would have to deal with is what is


was assigned the strace i handled the this appeal i also handled the subsequent sentencing yeah and the the safety valve the briefing on the recommendation and the ultimately the


intentionally aided counsel commanded induced ofer cured that person to commit the crime of bringing in alien for financial gain so on and earlier in the same instruction on the


they offer an unsuccessful explanation for what he did but it seems to me the only affirmative demonstration comes from the statistics actually your honor the supreme court in johnson emphasized that a


he was involved in this if she had requested this i p i the only reason to request this i p i would have been simply hopping on the plain language of the i p i when you have witnesses who say or say whether it's true or false but they're saying that they


hinged on the credibility of the complainant s t any mistake at trial could have shifted the balance in this case and there were several several mistakes made here first the court erred in finding that


both the passenger and the driver so that if the driver has a problem and is unable drive the car rather than have it so the passenger rights are away and in harris the driver's license was suspended it was the same situation in roughly the driver's


going to be out of corals or on his hands or anything like that so i think good any science in this case that this expert this suppose an expert was attempting to present is just junk and i think it i think he would he would have been properly excluded


his ability to observe what was happening they presented some photographs they also brought in jonathan davis who said i was not with stephen smith but they didn't present any evidence to


that they stole had an ongoing relationship at the time of the incident most importantly perhaps she did not testify that they were involved in any drug dealing business together or that he shared in the proceeds of this


i you know i've i forget it was definitely argued in closing arguments and i forget whether it was such forth in opening in the opening statement but definitely a closing argument the prosecutor makes clear that her theory of the case is


came in during the trial that of an additional amount of damages that is related to the the wrong or the negligence or the whatever the cause of action is but


about that too we have the defendant here who is facing prison sentence perhaps he has a reason to lie and again if you look at the fair tax the dependence


that had been discussed in court cases for twenty years there are no court cases that reflect that the finding of cocaine on anybody's person whether it's the mother of thing or is indicative of the use of ok


statutorily mandated sentence with an ark movies evolving standards he's now in the past fifteen years we've seen the evolution of these standards of decency in our community in the united states supreme court and in


startling different and so for the state to say well this is a minor mis remembrance it wasn't he was safe it was even latent ever kishen of testimony that never happened and it wasn't the only fabrication of testimony during


or the defense that you had given notice on that defense itself was someone he had given notice of a well the notice was merely the title of an online medical journal that contained


court not the point but one point was that he was not being evicted that day we don't know if we know that he had a case we don't know if that case was in the foreclosure


move so we can do that it's not it should be anticipated it's defendant should know what is coming next and the officers procedure or what is invested in their side he didn't knowingly resist anything


between first degree murder and second degree murder is somewhat instructive here as to what happened and how this matter must be created this is not that second degree murder is not a lesser included offense of first degree murder


second degree murder isn't a question of whether or not the verdicts were inconsistent rather what the case law says is that the second degree murder consideration and verdict are precluded because of the entry