those were being done for the purposes of safety and security in that was part of what they were suggesting you on the other hand i didn't know this was strictly business we were doing this that every people's credit worthiness and whether they could pay the rent


and again when the lawyer step forward if you please identify yourselves for the record speak up i woud lay clearly and spell your last name it's worth and i think


three material witnesses one didn't identify him and the other two initially didn't identify him and only did so later when the border patrol came to them and offer them the immigration benefits and the agent identified him using night vision goggles in very poor


agents the agents who are the agents of presumably have that bias to begin with they're testifying on behalf of the prosecution they're really motivated they think this is the guy how does that change the evidence at trial because most durst think that well


the critical point that i don't understand the we've heard it twice this court is a matter of st impression that's what this court doesn't it reviews the rovio balancing but then what do you make of the passages that you're


reasonable way to interpret that evidence your honor i think especially in light of i think it is unreasonable and i think it's especially in light of the fact that the court went into


court was skeptical and the defendant at sentencing as well continued to deny culpability by explaining well if i had known that this was somehow improper which is in other words implying that he didn't know


knew before it deported these individuals which means it was completely tied to the only test he ever mentioned which is the test for granting the dismissal and so he never even acknowledge that there was a separate and second test and so i think under this court's decision hinkson


rules of the actions to admitting the expert testimony and at least one finding of reliability on page two twenty of the excerpts of record where the court says i find that there is a basis for mr beers to offer an


at that point he likes to go to the kitchen that's when mentally the first time he's touched me goes is rough you don't need to go to the kitchen he's concerned about knives in the kitchen why don't you let us go get it he says ok the key to the bedroom is in the kitchen they get it he


letter but you would really need to evaluate his his credibility and i think you can only do that in person and it made a phone flap but i think the sentencing guidelines give us the right on a such an important issue that would


so a logic or so implausible for a mid level distributor to not have the funds on hand and to be have to be fronted to have that money in order to pay for the drugs and also there there's more in that in the record so what


not talking about jewelry quote it sounds like something heavy like a gun for either or both of these reasons this court should remain with instructions to suppress and let the court has another preference i'll begin by addressing the policy violation and then


and i think the answer i think the reason for that is quite simple he was it was concerned about the ultimate conclusion is you they don't appeal now but he also spent three hours in a daubert hearing watching mr mayor


miss camacho contends the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress that evidence because the agent exceeded the scope of a lawful administrative search now the prism through which we evaluate the search in this case begins with the fourth amendment which protects against


alleged prior to the expiration of supervised release in a warrant or summons it does not open up a door where the probation officer may allege one violation at


also said that the defense challenge was would zone successful because quote their fraudulent acts on lawful in both the united states and china meaning that you needed to have both a generic federal


things in the charge it's not tied to count one of the california complaint he never admitted to any controlled substance element so


and when they introduced themselves they came as by their own assertions well connected capable gun dealers on the pawnshop issue i want to contest the notion that that is so strange as to make this case that interesting to be honest it


said no just the law is what it is that's what you are one hundred and four that was no different than what two other jurors said who the government didn't strike so juror graphic e r twenty three said when asked about his views on the immigration laws he said no i'm not real strong on that


stand comfortably on the original reason cited which are that he was an engineer and he had this relative who had become a naturalized u s citizen and as a result we had concerns that he would have sympathy for him or that he stated that he didn't have any particular


well i guess the third reason you've been behind that would be that we've also frame this as a breach of the government's duty of good faith and fair dealing and so mr batty's in our view reasonably felt somewhat like the big


excuse for violating federal law one of the examples we see in the case law is in a prisoner escape or prison if it's on fire and the answer is yes because that is in imminent immediate threat to his health and safety but here there were another a number of other


acknowledged on the traditional question of competency and there were a couple of lines there where dr johnson said he's competent to assess his attorney and represent himself but really didn't analyze the idea of self representation


that we're talking about the edwards question what happened at trial of whether he was capable of representing himself what edwards says is that is the mental illness interfering with his capability to do those things and the record here


he referred to her as having banking experience why and why is that a problem well for a couple of reasons and the st one is that i think judge walton you know it's a tough call about whether to let someone you


and it was his van there's no no are disputing that but the keys were separate he obviously had another vehicle this was a common number of people with their well but you know


gun was an antique when he confessed he didn't say oh boy i thought this was an antique that's not that's there's nothing in the record to support that defense and obviously the gun itself


good morning i'm at peace the clerk carly palmer on behalf of the united states before we begin i'd like to make two brief points the first is that this is an unusual case in that the sr court has already evaluated the defendant's appeal and issued a reasoned


discretionary decision by the plaintiff's counsel and if there were clear that the evidence would be available i'm not sure what the


cases where contacting contacting that person would promote a criminal enterprise we did not have that here mr adams was not under that under thirty five eighty two d it limits communications of people


subject matter jurisdiction for the bar rule to take effect can he respond to that yes and that would be the second response i think based on reading the law of criminal contempt and the quantum of our rule there is a significant


then therefore examine the propriety of that no contact order the government first would say that the record supports the propriety of that order and that the facts that support that would be that the defendant had violated to no


arguing about these nine pages of documents to see everyone was satisfied that this was the universe of documents at issue and it was a simple legal determination of or met thought that that opposing counsel wasn't looking for the underlying data is that right


where we disagree is that the district court made its decision not only on the basis of the evidence a deuced in the government's case in chief but also on the basis of miss cargoes pretrial proffer and the district court's ruling is that page four i believe for sixteen to four twenty of the


prevented defendant from putting whatever evidence of that defense a defendant on to do so i think that comes at pages four sixteen to four twenty and this the timing of this is important and so what happened here was that


four said for that reason we are the court views then you statutes very narrowly so with that in mind we look at the first statute the government sites which is thirty to thirty eight which applies only to crimes where the word


reason for a broker in the first place the distinction to draw was by saying the remedy to our problem is the post or world where the guidelines become advisory and suggest the pre book or the guidelines were something more than just advisory the


and two responses the first is you don't account for means of identification that falls on the relevant conduct so i suppose arguably if it is recorded said well there are also names in insurance numbers and patient files and there might be an argument but that's not what they


briefly about prejudice if this court does end up sustaining or at least finding that the two thousand and two removal was valid for the four ninety six yes there's no question the two twelve see wasn't advised but we do feel strongly


the computers where it was found so even if there was an error on the part of the district court and is highly unusual circumstances a reversal conviction on planar review would not be appropriate in this case you also addressed the


understands them so that after that we can talk freely once i'm done with that ok saying we can talk freely as soon as i've read your rights that's inconsistent with a right to silence it's confusing and it


of weighing the harmlessness of the jest but here what the government did what the statement showed is that mays lied repeatedly and he didn't just this isn't lying to his doubt about being gay or lying to his


sixth hearing what piece of paper in the excerpt of record are you relying on the transcript of the hearing as well as the me transcript in and of itself is not dispositive as well i think that the


in this case she said there was a substantial probability and she requested one hundred twenty days and so the point at which a hearing might be required under those particular circumstances were not there now here was a very modest request for one hundred twenty days


jury had credited the defendant's claims that this was just a temporary loan this was very common at the company they could not have convicted on the tax counts which they did so we know that the jury rejected the defendant's


you do in fact have the right to enter the country so that the kids were to say hey mom you remember that time you sent me when i was a little boy of four or five years old to visit my aunt and uncle in arizona was it all legal


violation and there's a sentencing unhandsome and if it was the deprivation of rights or results in death and in that case the fourth circuit how the death must foreseeable a naturally result from the rights violating conduct so i do think that there is some precedent with this same


claim under the jones act by defining who is or is not a crew member and in the special conditions indorsement the company specified that it is a condition of this policy


could significantly and substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a mine safety hazard now the commission has developed a test that has been in effect now since one nine hundred eighty four called


that is not entirely chevron deference that is the skidmore review basically that's recognized by this court and was used by the sixth circuit in the north star case again that was a litigation position there that the individual should


ignition source and he found that was s n s he then looked at the other three violations extensively with experts from both sides plus witnesses from the company and the secretary that there were no


case as hostile to the secretary's position but that omits the subsequent history of the wall from case wolf run was a case about lightning arrestor and the question was whether or not it was s n s to have inappropriately maintained lightning arrestor the


arbitrator's that had been appointed and none have played out to the point where that question has risen to the top on that question though about the bringing of federal statutory claims i do want to take exception with something that counsel said about this being raised


in conjunction with the s b a he gave them that letter and he got nothing in return act rylan to that point owed him four point six million dollars and he got nothing it's a one way letter right now we have a situation where actor


congress didn't put is in congress could have and we know the purpose of the statute is brought it is to protect the public from sex offenders the guidelines and term think that punishing someone whose conduct in the conduct is what were the conduct is what harms the victims


if you're one of hundreds or part of a register for fifteen years to or two for twenty five years to or three for life so if you are going to defend it who committed the offense twenty years ago whether he is guilty of the offense of failing to register depends on whether he's a tier one tier two


fourth the cleveland versus policy management point on which the government relies and fifth the contention that there can be no proper request for a reasonable accommodation after a notice of germination is


honor that i'd like to move on now into the the second issue that's been raised on appeal and that's with regard to the disability discrimination case and just a couple quick things i want to correct judge stacker you asked a question about who was miss


secretary must prove but it doesn't say what the operator must prove and i think as we discuss in our brief what the operator must prove is exactly what the secretary has to prove in this case and


or they are sexually molested or whether their physical or mental damage far greater than that inflicted on a student i'm worried about


both protect the students and to effectively as you so what we what in the record i can't point you out to the page but mr liver man testified that what they do with the investigation is they go forward


exactly or the complaint clearly alleges that there are no local benefits generated by virginia certificate of need law and certainly we will have to fight about that on remand and it may be that this government is generally it's


that we're regulating officially everywhere but i'm not i'm not an expert in this field so i don't have one point to run with it the troubling thing about it is it is here on the


hearing only within twenty four hours of the now they you would already that's correct your honor your honor and but they can't go back in and force the marriage germination that we want on it would depend on what the language of the courts mandate


without any comment yes and we would argue that the case law on that is pretty clear that when there is a summary denial of a petition for rehearing that that does not answer whether or not it was denied on the merits and


honor the the answer is no reasonable juror if that's what the supreme court said that's the standard ok it we turn if it's ok with my colleagues to the martinez issue how did the martinez issue come into the case the martinez issue first came into the


sure we shoot them individually this is this case takes on a very different atmosphere because of the almost has an international implications and you know with the different characters the one across the overseas and here is not house


arrangement still require them to pay that there's no difference in their status it's far as payment is concerned that's that's corelli's they're all in they don't get the service directly so how is their status affected in any way not their status


lack of sophistication of education i think you mentioned that you at least suggested if you're climbing out of the in a sophisticated as might be ideal in these circumstances that's not a defense is it well


you know and i think that's part of the point for having the courts say something i mean there are cases where no matter what the defendant would have said


say very much he said he's had colon cancer he said much of his colon removed even though that was actually after the offense conduct in this case his owners were moved that was in two thousand and thirteen and he said he's been assaulted several times and most recently he's been vulnerable


court in an unpublished case we cited in our brief alaska's and alice noted that when the court sat through basically the only argument hearing this court's going to assume that the court heard that argument understood and i think that gives due credit to the district


the government filed a rule twelve b one motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction we briefed that motion under rule twelve b one there is a very simple three factor test for determining whether jurisdiction


not the first three cases my client filed my client has seven hundred sixty two cases all filed at around the same time only about five hundred of which have even been docketed so the notion that there is this orderly line in the my client would be vaulted to the front of a simply


appropriated too much of this particular health program and health concern and haven't appropriated enough for and we need we think you need to shift your priorities madam secretary and and


people may do so is it that act of sending her a personal account or is it just the fact that she put it in her lightly it is specifically protos specifically prohibited that you're not allowed to take information from the deltec system and


described that he uses a very inflammatory racial term against him and then as the man is leaning against the wall so i want to get back sprays


twenty five percent it limits any expectation of any recovery beyond that the district court case correctly correctly recognized georgia statute grants the state and interest in the award and that the plaintiffs


respons contention is that the district courts now as of this on the materiality question is is thorough and correct the evidence he found and he indulged a series of assumptions


was there was that day that day now and we know the basis of which why this evidence just wasn't turned over extent that prosecutors knew about this evidence


doing she saw someone leaving but didn't describe him in the police notes she saw the argument and gave a physical description although she picked someone out from the photo array they didn't fit that physical description but she didn't take


way you're stating you're stating that that we are telling a german or how to do with no no what at what i'm saying is when i speak of granting comedy i don't mean telling the court what to do but what i mean is are we going to incorporate as a matter of u s law are we going to give us domestic legal


point for the purposes of understanding the u s interest in safe harbor i think that has appeared so many different times that they can't be expected to have to say so that the u s has an interest in not being a safe harbor for work and also in every


the convictions were vacated the indictments were still outstanding and he was arrested on the outs and in two thousand and one indictments in september the new indictments came in october that they supersede


question is what could the state court do in light of judge jackson's order and the second question is are there formalities that would require the courts of appeal or the district court to say that he had lost jurisdiction and our point is to the the extent i'm all for once to rely on the formality


honor the position that the that a witness who who's a lawyer going to recommend doing they take a fifth amendment is evidence is lost that's not the way the system works if you're one of the system doesn't if he had just done that on his own initiative different world the system does


the day after the e mail was generated making the request defendant merritt sent out an email to the other board members quickly announcing himself as the voice of


requires you to provide a complete application so we can properly determine what you wish to construct so they're being really clear they're inviting the scoggins to give them the information they need


a pretty good argument there has been a constructive thank you but the the next request in the requests at issue in this case was the written request of august twenty sixth two thousand and ten so well but you acknowledge that she


were we have tried your honor but this guardians refused to participate in the process they've taken the position that they are not required to provide the information with respect to the ranch


you don't deny do you that you could actually bring a professional malpractise case against the hospital correct if you could really if you


and if so to impose a sentence he would have imposed had he realized the true guideline situation was the guidelines as calculated would have been properly calculated


showed and everybody said that that guy was the we dealer but i'd like to address the statement against interest because


tilted slightly in favor of the defendants in terms of the prejudicial effect as opposed to the other evidence about the conspiracy particularly because with regard to the murder that occurred


yes i do but i would urge the court to view that in a light so that my parlance doesn't prejudice mr cooke by subjecting him to a much higher standard of i don't i don't know her manners but she certainly


we raised and that yes we did we will we raised an objection specifically with respect to this universe of cases and the sentences that had been given because there was no way for us to do a national analysis


creditors such as our clients are not receiving cash they may receive a stream of payment but that street payment must have a value as of the effective date which means the present value of at least the value of the


be eighty two percent of their face value exactly what transpired because effectively this is math when we know the market rate we can do the discounting and that is what the house report said that accompanied a level twenty


judge train did was categorically reject the relevance of an efficient market because he determined that in any efficient market there would be some profit and he believes that all profit must be extracted from


garcia was convicted he was convicted under statute that does not require a controlled substance at that that particular one is raises the issue of whether it could be subject to a modified categorical approach


you know the commissioner has the burden of production with respect to the imposition of a penalty under seventy four ninety one c now part of that the elements of the claim for a penalty one of the elements is sixty seven


ongoing and everyone agrees that the proper means of applying the results of the macondo proceeding to the taxpayers returned is through what is called a computational adjustment and all that means is that the


the scope of that hearing i would say that it's this court's supervisory responsibility to direct to discipline in the litigation process when the government says has the free opportunity to present an affidavit to ask for


injury to another and that the four and that the fact that it's because the guidelines commentary then enumerates robbery the relevant comparison as this court has explained is whether the generics are conclusions i'm trying to


boxes so whether or not he was prosecuted in china in this specific case so is that the responder wrote a young written statement like a summing up all of the questions


and they end what the district court in a permanent injunction might decide especially when there are more facts


defense and the the lack of communication from signing an advocate with an adequate defense is in part him taking a plea everyone supplies when he comes to the plea proceeding any suddenly the day that day says i'm going to take a plea today and nobody's prepared and nobody even has the indictment with


sure that that does alert anyone that someone's looking at it what that says even if you can understand the gobbledygook that the computer was divided into five portions and each of them was added to the f t k access data system that


well here the next case united states says steve


and strongly suggested in that opinion that it was going to adopt that it would adopt what the government is urging us to adopt well but i think i think that case has to be viewed as it certainly is more narrowly more


had this unusual combo financing based on a semi confidential basis all in the bankruptcy court's opinion of pages eighty today eighty four and it said look what i'm going to do is a word a wrist premium and it in fact increased the risk premium from what our side it originally


the rule of law you apply is where there is an efficient market and i agree that in the first instance that's a determination for the bankruptcy court to make but here it was a late effect where there was an efficient market in a chapter eleven that rate


after this accident took place and then of course the warrant process and procedure that was needlessly cumbersome and which involved multiple steps for someone to go through which judge would cop characterized in one form or another as always creating an


very short deliberation and that my client received the longest sentence of all the coconspirators that and he had a very in had a very small involvement even if we accept all that evidence that was testified against him that ultimately he was denied a fair trial and


at the second day of the hearing there's a proffer by the government saying we have a video of these other people involved with him taking money out of that safety but you say that they don't have the video he


case i'm responsible for is released on bail there's a long discussion about how this whole system is set up so that you know you don't have to put up any money now because you're going to lose your money if the defendant defendant flees and the third thing is as the


thank you first of all or the notion that there's an appeal waiver in this case and we couldn't proceed is going that's really going beyond saying well we want to withdraw our concession that the convictions have to be vacated that's really going


anything prior to march fifteenth two thousand and eleven was not a projection it was a guess after after march fifteenth two thousand and eleven at the insistence of a


greenstone securities if we just focus on the first seven letters that mr frewen wrote in two thousand and seven and two thousand and eight what's happening there is that greenstone is raising cash by


bear with me for a moment i think it's really important to understand what happened with the district court had before at the initial trial conference orly's attorneys raised the


that basically the allegations are the argument today is based on a record that did not exist if where the district court


this this juror did actually complain during the course of the trial the jurors sent a note out complaining about this statement made by the other juror that it seemed to be improper that there was no support for the statement made by the other juror in the in the


under this the banking system in this country volves fractional reserve banking under the f t i see regulations that interpret the federal reserve bank only three percent of deposits


witness would not have sold to them at such a low price the price that he sold to them put into their one witness was twenty six thousand dollars per kilo that would allow mr jackson to profit approximately four


was or two they would have they would have been something that indicated that they knew where to look instead there is direct testimony from jackson that he didn't tell anybody where he was going and he didn't tell anybody who's going to be selling drugs in new york and


think it a minimum the government has to prove the existence of the enterprise that charged in the indictment the whole i mean the the fifth amendment really is one of the core concerns of the fifth amendment is that defendants have notice of


conspiracy spanning multiple months focused on heroin sales and involving thirty undercover transactions when this circuit and the supreme court have looked at what it means to engage in a conspiracy they've


points first as a matter of mootness i think it is well established that departure from the country does not move to challenge to a final order of remove all so long as there are collateral consequences here the relevant collateral consequence in this case is that this is a second removal


this is in front of the title three court right now as to whether the commonwealth through the board's fiscal plans


start with the preamble which does have language which looks very similar to the language you're reading and the whole way of reading you know sections for a one in six to one arse is the only theory that says that you know that there was actually


or shepherd that is not going to be part of the alegate encompassed within the allegations that are framed against shawmut or shepherd in the existing can point your argument is that we can only look at the complaint no that's not true you're i won't i don't


interrupter and i'm sort of at a price at which they can make some profit because they want nationwide business because that's huge business respect i think it is i'd respectfully disagree with you and i do i believe that it is one in the


life and one of the trial counsel one of mr karr struck counsel started pushing him you want to go home you want time served and he brought up counsel a defendant in another case


he didn't it cetera would be relevant to the jury sunder standing of each statement but in any event the judge did strike the reference to cooperation agreement but told him that you should understand that that's teams were given in the context of attempting to plead


as well it should be but here there is no murder and under federal law and under state law there has to be a death in order for there to be a murder anything else is an attempt which is not with what he was convicted on and what he was sentenced


that was sometime i think even before our filing of our main brief and he still has not consented to the sale of b m b m w i think that the regime is in place to allow for the sale of the assets to avoid the


he said that the person was able to work until he had the surgery i agreed to be stuck for the surgery that we were disputing i paid for the surgery my client paid for the surgery on the right knee he was off and that surgery november of


you know it's clear that if you don't think my group process rights were violated the same it is against the manifest weight of the evidence and should only be the right mike which we pay for the surgery should be the twenty one weeks of t t t and


car and he can't gives a positive hit on the car that might be something that the that the any trial judge including judge ford would say yeah that that's enough for a warrant but failing that and just doing the more expeditious thing of


that it's based on well defendant i will object to the court i note your continuing objection please be quiet he knows but the defendant is doing it he's objecting to going through another exam is not making a claim of ineffectiveness


continuance in order to prepare for those matters towards the end of the hearing on the motion of a case there was a request for time to respond to some of those allegations but that's after they're already in testimony on these allegations and that was inappropriate


why they won't take the rent if there was a decent reason cause he was doing more it's a that will court to win more than in court ok so this is what he did it can't help but that this is what he did so he he asked about why if they ever said that they would take it and they


as a predator who followed him around the neighborhood looking for him and lying in wait until he finally got out of this car so that bad was necessary it's not harmless


testimony that spiro called the spin every two hours to check on his location that spirit provided him with specific instructions to the address he was delivering on the night of the accident and that your client


that's what national affidavit where there is no police department making a major city in america where the officer who originally receives the


very public policy that informs the act we have to have a sufficient number of attorneys and clients who are going to get something or there is going to be no benefit to the health care providers because the point


what do you think that directs us back to i think that is eighteen eighty five of which the court must consider yes and that and then in ascertaining the court may


managed properties and dull for approximately ten years prior to the issues giving rise to this case and for approximately ten years mack operated its business in the village adult without incident but these notable incidents


essentially written the public utilities act and i'm going to cover that theme in a few different ways as we proceed but but turning to that first issue that the statutory analysis i think all the parties agree that the


that the commission's decision could be supported either by the commission itself or by us without the use of the word simultaneous in other words could we affirm their decision and that's why storm without putting the word simultaneous in


suburb is considered with an adage in a different town even if from the same storm and they keep on bringing in this imagery of fought far flung locations across the illinois putting aside the fact that thousands of people were without power


specifically brackets objection that is agree on a price or what it eventually went to eminent domain and i believe that was resolved i am not one hundred percent certain that it is your position that the conservation district was given to get the land for bloomer


that's we believe that's inappropriate we have we cited to the physicians assurance case in the other case to say that there are collateral matters and the court trial court circuit court should retain jurisdiction over those collateral matters and that's because those are issues not involved in you appeal


that she had had to attack her credibility as a witness or competency is a witness it was absolutely fair game and there was a there was a judgment made by your general somebody but also by joel subways across the country and by our congress


penalties and attorney's fees as did the arbitrator there is the commission's reasoning which is why we are here the commission found that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent acted in an unreasonable and


of two thousand and twelve the defendant was charged one count misdemeanor battery the case proceeded to the branch courts i wish time there was a bonafide doubt as to whether or not the defendant would be fit to stand trial the trial court ordered to p c x examinations for which the


officers were supposed to follow according to his testimony and my understanding of the testimony the record is that he did not that there were strict invision that either the contract there was a provision in there regarding working with the


infrastructure and then at the time that they entered the contract with allied barton they gave allied barton the responsibility of manning that infrastructure and so that contractual provision those those a lot of those recommendations that already that is amended into the infrastructure


his discretion if there is more than one reasonable hypothesis and one of those reasonable hypotheses is consistent with what the jury has done in this case there isn't any dispute that the jury had within its power the ability to


essentially putting the stamp of approval on the actions of mr and a dog giving credibility to him and his version of events and to the detriment of mr downs a jury can could be use they be using you


so my question she was what do you think the supreme court meant or but were they talking about when they said we're not going to drop bright line rule regarding the actual warrant or reliable copy but what do you think they meant by


well it's it's speculation my strong strong guess is that we wouldn't be here today but that's an alternative request for relief our principal requests for relief is outright reversal for the first several


invited briefing on it and that is equitable a stoppel because this all happened with in the time period within which the defendants could have addressed any


night before the deposition and i didn't make me for about five minutes before your honor there is no time limitation indicated in the statute so that your answer to everything right well secretary construction indicates that there is no


change the fact that they were never married just like in this case parties never married no nor are they seeking to be or they were not a misprint not seeking to be have this case adjudicated under the marriage and marriage in dissolution of


fewer cars or say there's going to be no cars public parking at the opera anymore and that is not a subject of prophecy or opinion that is just the simple fact how long is this going to last it was ninety two


petitions which are not likely to succeed on the merits the only way to be able to have the cross examination with which courts can evaluate an expert opinions testimony is to have those documents that the expert looked at the subpoena


delineates what those are yes right and i think also you know just being a practitioner in this area you know after getting tax returns you know the next thing you look at you start looking at bank statements and and evaluating and determining


i must tell you that there seems to be in my seventeen years of practice a growing proliferation of small businesses a number of my clients now have their own small mom and pop businesses a lot of them have escorts you can't even those have the means to bring in


did not a veil herself of the services that were promised and i have a couple of responses that number one if they had kept their promise of a security guard being present twenty four hours were


instructed by multiple staff members of the defendants that in order to obtain a safe right transport or security escort during the night shift i should approach the security personnel manning any security desk including the security desk and gold let her go in the lobby and request the service


figure and finally concluded assuming of the veracity of his history there's no claimants medical history to report it i would suggest that the problem is work related so he's basing his opinion based on the truthfulness of the


summary judgment ruling the duty to indemnify never came into existence it never wipe and as elder says and that's an that's an important point to make then in going back to what i was trying to say with with the trial court i i wanted to have the circuit court


she's not authorized to read anybody's emails and she thinks she'd get in trouble for it there may have been something along those lines but miss price also testify in the shearing opened up the treasurer's


my position is as stated my brief in that the court is limited to reviewing documents that the circuit court reviewed in connection with this motion but i understand there's a difference of opinion i understand that i'm probably on the losing end of that argument


the relationship is this brokered road in illinois they hire a incompetent truck company that has a history of violations bed uses incompetent drivers to haul their load


contractors here it withheld taxes cover them with insurance this is exactly what the regulation was designed to do as your honor pointed out it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with robert j michael holmes


plaintiffs there said well we can bring expert witnesses in before the courts and we can have the experts make predictions about what rates were to have been had not these allegedly false reports in


city has or how good it was has in these reimbursement lanes just protect them and we've decided fifteen cases at least in our brief there is many more that say protecting of lanes alone is not sufficient


physically but not even technically physically impossible to change the design you could change the design but it would be legally impossible you'd be violating the yet and it is equally legally impossible from a preemption


taking wardlow one step further from running to walking i don't think you need to see to take it from running to walking but mostly rocking away it's definitely a flight it's just maybe he could run maybe he has a neanderthal in the factor means he was trying


it takes to reverse engineer ok so where should i look in the record to see that so i think it was


don't i'm not going to say further because there in the proof i pointed your honour's to those record states i did want to open it up now we have not even addressed his other two arguments if the court wants need to address them i'm more than happy to unable to but if you do not i will


no clarity on that there's no agreement at least from my review of that colloquy is that what you're basing it on no your honor it's not that it's taking a step back on the moon is claim section eight fifty


right without a plea agreement it sounds like you all were hanging on and trying to say well he can go forward but we still have a right to you know if something goes wrong we have a ten year mandatory minimum how can he possibly


patrol agents fill out when they encounter illegal aliens in the field and sometimes those encounters result in criminal prosecution sometimes they do not right in this instance but it but but whether they do or not they fill up the form is your point exactly and


they're identified and then shipped off somewhere to a chain of custody


the district court that it shall consider relevant conduct if i may turn to this that relevant conduct shall be determined with respect was offenses that must be grouped together on the bases of all


happened in my mind that many levels here that he it's unclear to me why this prosecution was delayed and then it happened in a way that put him in the position of then needing to argue for the time he'd already served for this whole thing crimes and you're saying it's


you call in and you say clean it up because the police my becoming then why doesn't that taint the entire relationship why didn't i say look you are the owner you are renting it out to people that you know people


remand to the district court of thirty five years on the grounds that the district court committed both procedural and substantive errors requiring reversal


and in light of the totality of all of those circumstances she felt that the appropriate sentence was thirty five years now in order to get there with a twenty to sixty a conviction it required the court to


second sentencing where no one had found it or objected to it including the government or the defendant where the p s r had continued to say that the defendant had been required to register as


should somehow be imported into your own or in your own clients well your honor i do think there was really a failure at the adversarial system here at sentencing and it's i appreciate your


that the government wanted to establish here was did the defendant belong to the vikings did he have a vikings tattoo was he aware that there were findings made in one thousand nine hundred one that the vikings were a deputy gang involved in civil rights abuses


for cause of so i mean yes so so and a broker dealer can can take your order for us thousand shares of u s steel without having possession of them right


litigation about not producing it simply because the government can do that and maybe the message you want to bring back to the trial attorneys is you create your own problems when you do things like this and stand your honor


demeanor and what he was doing there might well be material to his defense and if he had said that if he had said i i was acting confused like in zero gosa for instance which different context i'm sure is he required to do that to get discovery is not enough the defense says this is our theory of


the government here improperly searched and we do we review that issue for plain error at this point you know your honor he reviewed this issue do novo mr stanford repeatedly brought to the issue of the failure to preserve the phone


remote access or the phone i can't quite tell even what happened because the phone was in the government's custody and apparently a phone call was made internet searches were made so it's unclear what happened but council sway is that in


foul on the play to use that in a three five three analysis correct you ok so but i think what you're arguing my understanding of your argument is that at bottom the judge made traditional findings of fact that were


air based on shields will concede that the plane air part that's where i would disagree that to define this as an emissions case but assuming it is you're there the outcome of the case is exactly as judge pratt read from the shields case


so the defendant makes five arguments on appeal and they generally fall into three categories first the defendant finds fault with the court process which in which no plain air actually occurred


court found that that was one question too many and in jones it was even less than that the officers invoked his right area of the suspect invoked his right to silence in the officer said i understand that but and before he could even finish the sentence the suspect


time's ticking of course he doesn't have to and it was in the papers so we assume the judge knows the law so what's your response to that well i think that i would point the court to read a


and they'd have to consider the factors and that's and the amendment listed like eleven different possible individuals who could be involved in criminal activity when it comes to this i


probation condition that is something i consider but it would be that is a good point because you're right it is talking about conditions of probation i don't think it was really be a prosecution it would be enforcing a


at the proper way which you're advocating for now that he wouldn't have reached a different base fence level or higher or lower and and just


we said you should start out at a level twenty eight not at a higher level you started hearing a level thirty two the only reason why we went down to thirty was because the district court considered the vindictive or news argument the codefendant council did


the government wants to point to the questions that given that there was the prior inconsistent statement and he hadn't come forward with the video i mean i would think that hurts you on the heart with this so he never came for the video he has the prior inconsistent statements so i just i'm not sure why the jury


or separate from the intent to deprive the owner of his car i would say that that wasn't good enough for the dom and jordi because essentially the doll majority said look this is the generic way that people are charged in the california law


equally i would say if not more circumstantial evidence going the other way because we know that evidence is not just affirmative evidence evidence is also a lack of evidence so i would like to talk a little bit about the lack of that you are serving your time mr


mischaracterization of what the district court did it was the defendant's request and that's it you are seventeen zero eight or twenty one sixteen and then later at three three eight is the defendant's attorney's request to reserve on their rule twenty nine motions and


and the best evidence that they have on that your honour's are two pieces right so there are clinic employees who said that sort he's even used to pay our turo and they would talk behind a closed door driver right and the problem with the head is that search even as the office manager did the


are clearly in the realm of preponderance of the oven in standard here because the one point two million dollars which includes not only the claims that were billed by the sunset clinic but also the claims that were referred to outside providers who then bill that


to that probable cause finding a fair probability the same standard that using the rule forty one contacts this court should review that finding by the district judges that sit on the foreign intelligence surveillance court with the same standard for for


at the outset i think it's important to note that some of the child pornography videos contain names like one thirty seven or fifteen they were just numbers there was no way to tell what what was in those files without examining them


i believe with that i've touched on most of the points that i that i want to raise with your honor's unless your honour's have any additional questions for me at this time no question there no you know we're going to ask you


technically an exception to the privilege but as negating the foundational elements of the privilege specifically the existence of a marriage at that time if in that way that sounds like a really good fit for


our position is that a guardian ad litum is not a federal officer pursuant to the removal statute i do know that it's interesting that in paragraph three of fourteen forty two there is no language with respect to acting under that


disproportionate and what the causation is when you've got six different factors what's your response to that my response to that is there may be a case in which that is true so if a judge says these are the ten different


prosecutor's exercise of the challenge that was exercise was motivated by race i don't i don't see how that strengthens that argument well i mean i think we've all had looks that that the prosecutor was conscious of race yes but


controlled substance requirement in not statute we conclude that this is an easy case because a state court decision definitively answers the question that state court decision is a state supreme court decision that's right that in


a different statute than the one before us this statue rouser goes on to say is fundamentally different this statute is not a drug statute in a totally different part of the code this is a prison statute and in


prosecution based on the fact that these women were induced to cross the line to perform all the acts that they cheat


denying her effective assistance of counsel and a violation of her six meant right then maybe the court would have to reverse and send it for a new trial but clearly that is not what is happening in this case so how many


it's my understanding that all the united states need to needs to do is prove one false statement unfortunately i don't have a specific a cite for that at this moment but it's worth noting that the defendant could have challenge the indictment ahead of trial as


were there were quite a few i believe rogue employees in that despite the fact that ramirez told them to lie about certain things they were refusing to lie and again there were quite a few employees who were choosing to try to obtain


as it stands does not support an assertion that neither the government nor the defense was able to locate anybody who participated in the successful modification there is an absence of evidence one way or the other about any successful


twenty had its own difficulties just standing alone because for me five months later is very difficult to say that that's reasonably near the event charged in the indictment i agree with you in our case we have a case i talked about


that you could ask for survivor you could have made the record you could have you could have asked the question that you're speaking about closing arguments you see he was asking for help in my point was defense counsel during the actual closing argument objected before they even made the argument because they saw this


evidence could have been construed that way i'm asking a different question my question is what do we do with the fact that the prosecutor thought at the time that he didn't have the evidence in the record and thought it was critical and then right brought out that diagram in


drew this thing before they gave their closing our nischelle closing argument they should refer to it during the initial closing argument if they thought it was appropriate they obviously sat on it they were going to use it regardless of what happened and there was no discussion of the


is tension in alabama some tension in alabama law in the twenty eight day i filed the supreme court has emphasized repeatedly that violence is required but that was before jackson those are older cases they're definitely older pieces and


there the only two people that were there consultants the only two people that defense counsel conceded in the opening that patients would be talking to and so that's where we would take a little bit of a step back and ratchet it down and say that's not based on the argument the defendant made during the trial that we don't think it's as prejudicial


it moving down to the undercover yeah let's talk about the video so what does you i mean i was so shocked when i read you pick up your brief because you guys did seem to be talking about two totally different cases so your position


that when we look at the purpose and language of the legislative amendment to rule thirty two what we conclude is that the purpose of that was to narrow it and what petrie held is that after that amendment the court's obligation to make


fraud on which the government focused was the multiple pledging of the lots and mr gere hearts two thousand and seven pledging of those lots in two thousand and eight pledging of lots that had already been pledged to individual victims both in two thousand


counsel well probably most likely be sane in more detail but let's say we don't agree with you on every point that you've argued and we feel that there's a need for there are certain procedural errors that either need to be further developed or clarified


principal or infant aider and abettor that's washington state law and then i do but agree but again my my point is why are we talking about a year on the better because he was convicted under the principle offenses section for


of the child pornography guideline and hear a defense counsel made it and other specific non frivolous the policy argument that the guideline applied was unsound defense counsel explained that the commission was amending the guidelines and amending


you can't get a ten twenty to get a conviction based on authentication features right if that was what it was charge would have been missed charge because an authentic asian feature is something different it's a symbol or a hologram or a watermark right so what the ten twenty eight or what to be one


where do you think we should find in the record the most fulsome statement i guess it's going to come in somewhere through mr pro shack where they where they were allowed to simply introduce to the jury the notion that they relied on the


honor your honors as to this issue of why would there need to falsify documents if there was no intent to commit fraud i would suggest a


that it acted diligently in attempting to apprehend the defendant while he was abroad their efforts exceeded those of the agents in mendoza and in the court also said and the ninth circuit has found


himself has caused the delay he can't they are after bring a speedy trial act claim so yes the court discusses you know believe made findings on both issues and both points and both arguments they either one of them is fatal to the


strikes even strikes with violence adoption trip lens to make clear that obtaining property was physical property and didn't include rights and this was about of course abortion centers whether they could sue protesters for interfering with their


it drops from seven hundred feet down to seven to ten feet he then was asked if you want to if you want to get into custody he wasn't going to get over a seventeen foot fence that's true i think that fact probably cuts cuts both ways but it it is a it is a


factors look to do so even if it wasn't a bar to voluntary departure criminal history is something the idea has to look at to exercise their discretion and so you're going to be talking about the aliens criminal history here but i understood the district court


who said this was not appropriate pain treatment the defense would normally be except it couldn't have been in this case i mean a cancer doctor my patients have a whole lot of pain from cancer and i have to prescribe a lot more then


he just says i would just mark it deceased and give it to the girls up front and you know i just put up with all the others that was so that was so that's relevant as that may have been relevant


just i mean that's my main substantive point i want to underline i just want to say something about mr lawson remember which is that had he been sentenced at the low end under the correct guideline range as we were arguing it is his


officer matter and in bren and cases that follow that it doesn't matter under the fourth amendment he's allowed to ask the passenger to get out of the car and that's pennsylvania versus men at that point before any terry first takes place mr ridgway


is going to be prison next i would say jail next i would say would be defend it's mandatory supervision following period of jail time and i think and then i would go into night probation and


including the physical evidence the blood found on the sneakers the observations of the officers and the location of the appellant at the scene of the crime so there are the court held that there was reliable uncontroverted evidence to


five k motions that are not filed in this public way so it's not that's helpful that's helpful first a snow excuse me and i appreciate that background could you ask provide a little more background for me because i didn't match up the dates and i should have did


the concession of math i think that i mean i think the government my friend mr zip does a good job in the brief but it's not exactly accurate because the concession of math is in response to the p s r saying it's math and what the


the analysis not whether in fact your client used was convicted of a particular drug that satisfies the enhancement but rather categorically whether the


you disagree well i do i don't think you can look to any documents if there is a missing element hundred far lopez again we have to question becomes is there a missing element or is there an overbroad i'll be honest the


in the country or did he intend to go into border patrol custody and so that that summarize it but and the second reason that this is harmless besides what i just indicated is the evidence was otherwise overwhelming about the amount of payments that these smugglers would


practitioners may do and that's outside the record but what they may do in some case doesn't indicate what happened here and in fact what happened here is exactly what this court has repeatedly found sufficient which is the defendant pleaded to a count


out what a reasonable defendant with reasonable counsel giving them competent advice would understand that waiver language to me and i mean my experience is that people look at that language and if you added another


here respectfully i think they're very similar and a general waiver of appeal is not ambiguous the general includes the specific and as a result it would include appeal from casa here to on the reasonable expectations both the record in this case and i think the structure


difficulty understanding what was asked of the alien and here the record is replete with those things so in the two thousand and fourteen post arrest interrogation mr hariri is asked what country he's a citizen of he doesn't understand he has


always gets to introduce the proffer same and used this way proffer statements that are a simple excuse to forego investigation developing compelling evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and


fifty and the government excuse me the court found that quote the factual record does not support chas argument close quote that he was fraudulent we induced the fact of the matter is people come in for proffers


sure you know during the investigation you've got the biggest fish sure officious in this case be the targets and then everybody else can be a witness because you're trying to find witnesses to shore up the trial


in to meet with the grand the agents and that was a specific allegation and that was obviously a very devastating allegation and wendy cho was brought for the specific purpose of saying i was there for the entire time


no evidence whatsoever that he had any inkling that there was such an agreement that there was such a conspiracy this these broad global conspiracies and that alone is reason


the extortion the object issue though taylor says if the person believes it's the defendant believes that they're robbing someone of drugs or drug proceeds because of rage


institution are none of those things came out in closing and none of the things were necessary for a jury to reasonably believe that mr master master was guilty of the


there there's no point in the future for finding or for the proceedings required by the status of your point that


that that fact there's no affidavit from defendant saying that he didn't receive this information previously that there's that he didn't receive a report with this information the only thing that we have is the defendant's


judge flannery in evaluating the testimony before the summary judgment included that there was a shimmer of doubt as to this question of whether desire had formed and if so did it for before they got the offer that they intended to accept so for


clearly outnumbered he had just witnessed this brutal beating and now this group of younger men were attacking him and based on that mr mims use a degree of force that he recently was necessary to protect himself and


theory that the swedes really ok because the money would have been put back at a later date l a p d is collected through air d c and crohn's and this court said that money is not subject to any control of


arguments that were previously rejected in those cases coming out of the fifth district that should have an assumption of the risk not that this is this is a failure to comply with a second as justice lewis i believe in the deception in the one in the last


child court stated i'm clear is clear i'm convinced of defendant's guilt as i can be i'm cutting off the rest of the argument this is not the case here here defend it was able to give


we take down the serial number that could prove you don't have a possessory interest and then we don't use it there's been no evidence that shows he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the scan second just briefly this was not a consensual account encounter


that you could present your own argument with justice quinn raise some questions as i gave you my address knows you're in your and i always figure that oral argument is for the benefit of the court more than anything else and


one that is viable against the state that that is where it belongs the soudan immunity argument was made but on appeal we've stuck to sort of the simpler i think narrower and easier ground which is that to the


we're getting about arguably other state earlier stages which could also be claimed as as as ever been seen to be awareness into the awareness of


gentlemen and the like that still keeps them separate that's the balancing act yes no question about it but we still come back to the fact that the structure of this and the up through the case presents to make it clear that repos


still to be considered and the fate the fact that this is trying to be a remedy for this if it public interest doesn't remove this from the ambit of the amendment


to to keep them here drivers off the road there are threats to the safety of the public and taking their cars certainly has served to deter them from from doing that kind of thing


waiver rule is it continues throughout ok there are two exceptions according to simpson significantly changed circumstances that we have that here


of the three judges that he appeared in front of and and as a matter of policy at the very least it is defendant who attempts to thwart the administration of justice is just six pounds he said it twice


that during this time the doctor stated that the injured worker complaining to the back cramps headaches nervousness import sleep persisted and the objective condition occasioning that occasion in the headaches and back complaints was that the doctor found


a proton durance of the evidence i think they just said you know you got hurt you're claiming this and we're going to go along with that you talked about the wilders the smoke and i'm not sure but it


fairly clear it's fairly clear that the reason that civil rights is mentioned specifically as another bank there are probably two very obvious reasons for it one the in sure it is a public


didn't even address the fact that the were present completed in three years in section six of mechanics things certainly requires that they have when rights the work must be completed within three years and there was no evidence of owner approved ex


he made it clear up front that he did not have experience with i v gauge codes and that's why they had to have the architect involved in fact there was testimony that mr dunn boss had recommended another


and with ms whitley who is a party who is also an architect none of them were doing expert testimony we got their knowledge again through a rather clever line of questioning that enabled


company or will fail because what they provided for oil for them to escape substantial i betray tional wards is the reason that so many of the courts of our sister states


the court said that the clause was upheld against an argument that was kind for it's a public policy now later courts did distinguish maybe not on the basis that the notion that the provision was


maybe no mention of any kind of dysfunction in the workplace or this satisfaction she just says that she's moving out and he can offer him some of these business services back doesn't that get a favorable response from him


witnesses that were allowed to testify about being added and at trial those witnesses your honour's where the state said from the very beginning that if any of the civilian witnesses and namely the crowd witnesses took the


appeal given that the circuit court shows interpretation of the three which put off the terminations date into the future is there any basis for a claim of damages


well the court is often required to do that because sometimes the statute of statutory provisions i wouldn't without regard to other statutory provisions other provisions in the law that a contradictory


i mean they were required they were asked turned over hospital documents not their own documents that so right but let's go let's go into the well i just say that we have this kind of dispute hospital records they're not concords


it would have just stayed in the abdomen but he also said earlier in his testimony about dr di filipo that that's where it would have gone anyway no matter what she did so there was an assault proximate cause argument and that's


or she have succeeded in keeping out the gun church it's probably because the the u w conviction is not a conviction where the defendant the victim and excuse me use the weapon they use the gun as a weapon


though it was largely unseen to magic beforehand does manifest symptoms i mean you do have pain in your hands mr mr carmody testified to that that he did have arthritis and as has he did have some pain in his neck prior to


the question presented is one of law and we know the heresy if you have a good sale in front of you you don't go to any other method of validation right means that determining if that's a good sale is a method of valuation and that is a question of law now are there questions as to


there was a chain of custody at the time of trial and as i've explained no matter which way the evidence shows which way the d n a testing comes out it would materially change this trial because it's the difference between defending yourself against inconclusive stated


nativism part of that policy plaintiff is not a party to the contract there is an assignment of some sort and we have a nexus not ability case that's pending and we did try to do this type of motion in that case but the court had said


at least come to an understanding what we're talking about sure we're talking about thirteen eighteen the number or an identification that's correct wasn't there and identification in this case by that he had made you know there was an exclusion


and so why are you pointing at thirteen as some sort of critical number in this case when that really that number didn't make any difference but does make a difference because every low side that is not tested it is a possibility of


excluding the defendant that's why this is so critical in a t n a case as opposed to a fingerprint case and so here there are a testable lowside so in other words if you would have tested number five six seven or eight any of those an expert testified that


individual right and then that raises the question what kind of good friends can be drawn from that as that was fact that she wait each of these nine packets individual


necessary i think that but i mean don't we have to get to that just to to to accept your your argument that she didn't test can we infer when she stated under oath in her opinion


right i mean it's the state's job to dry out these essential elements and by doing that it would ask very simple questions again nothing new in terms of requirements from the state i'm about exactly how she did pass and and


medication so they keep records apparently of what your prescription is but not whether that was dispensed you on every given day so again it would have been great headcounts had counsel brought that to the judge's attention again said listen this is the only evidence that is out there


illinois statute would pass muster under either intermediate scrutiny there are strict scrutiny certainly the intersection is present in the statute are narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling government


use that are and then on the range there she was never given any additional any badge any uniform she wore sweats at first and then a beige uniform she had no vest nothing like that out on the street


we've least call the first case


is only whether dr mackey mason supported his opinion with sufficient evidence to to have produced a possible opinion saying his sampling was too small is that the idea of it with well there actually to be two problems with his sampling


address in addition one of the issues he was addressing was keeping it to containing him in the same box and so it would be easier for customers to use so there were at least two issues of who was


said visual inspection of this and you can actually see in this jar the lines where they inserted the mold change to make curse flat you can actually see the witness lines i'm happy to publish this to the court that the same


that there was a lack of evidence in that timeframe and without resorting to speculation the examiner could not offer an opinion but that's precisely why the interview of the veteran was critical and that it was


look at the opinions issued by the court for example at the ages appendix pages a twenty three a twenty five where


specification what we're doing is we're claiming the device overall and we're making very clear that the edges that cut are on one side and that's the only edges and that's emphasized in the prosecution history and that's the edges


would change since almost all cases involve in part reliance on service records at that happened in virtually every case it seems to me or at least a large number of them that seems to me would become


claim and there was no requirement for customs to make the claim for shell or to give them more money than what they had asked for in particular with respect to shell since it had was using the


to collect information to spend a considerable amount of money doing that to ferret out people who are gauged in dumping what's the matter with rewarding people who perform that sort of systems


attention to one document not to mention a directory in our brief and that is a page one when you don't which is advances excavation plan


deviation request received by fax dated august fifteenth he made a comment that that was a back dated letter there's no evidence in the record that that letter was back dated by advance and submitted later that it was dated august


and they did nothing they they didn't exhibit the necessary diligence in fact it was the agency that reached out to ban and about a month and a half later on march eleventh saying you know we have your current zoning we told you that's what we were going to consider it's deficient and then on


that is a matter of fact nobody even sees this until the last day of briefing every one of the soon we were going to carrying on with this appeal isn't there any technical got to going on here


on page sixty four of the appendix that it outlines the standard that they are such a follow in order with regard to maintaining training records and she's supposed to timely and accurately maintain all the employee training records collecting


date let's be clear that now if i can turn next to mr everton twice and whether they were witnesses or not they they are testifying to what they actually heard mr phillips was very clear in his testimony that he


being written this way and then those are really the same thing the only thing it might add is a microprocessor but let's be honest all of these devices are computers that have microprocessors and that's in this back and think computer program to emulate a hypothetical future would i like to look at this


brevity of their discussion it's not clear this is a pattern of problems that the veterans court that in terms of their application of the harmless error standard this that they appear to to apply to low of burden


why it is precisely that you believe that plate one tells me i ought to assess to the leap and fifty to a one to two separate diagnostic code will play one shows two non overlapping motions


in good standing in the highest courts of the jurisdictions in stephanie's case massachusetts the commonwealth of massachusetts and in tim's case the great state of california i have knowledge of their credentials and i'm satisfied they present us the necessary


says if the second and that second clause where it says of the secretary has not established previously a combination rate dropped out or a combination rate for the export are in question and when you think


provided two counsel for the defendants at issue in this appeal is the construction of two massive claims in two different but related patents the old one for patent is a continuation of the two


it seems to me there there is something to be said for the proposition and maybe even if it was agreed that if you think about the elements ones i want and ask was there a specific corroboration


idea that mr fleming was writing is claims the only way he knew how because of his background as a programmer that he didn't intend to return the old way cover a product that he found out more or avoid prior art that he later found


agreement they have a proper cause of action this goes back to the fairness question to drain and brought up they have the opportunity to take their cars in front of the trial court and obtain a judgment there and ultimately if they're not satisfied with that


although i will concede that is the most common issue that comes before this court is the failure of the alleged failure to provide medical evidence but it isn't the most you know whether this statute is limited to medical evidence but whether it mandates a


another which makes sense because when you're in the two seventy one b world you're operating against a backdrop of two seventy one a where if you're the one that's practicing the invention which you've been douches yourself to practice


statement and said there has been infringement from make this entitle to be compensated the only issue is damages the the parties during the trial repeatedly agreed that the only issue


an effort whatsoever to refute that point because it can't be refuted we're not talking about pencils generators we're talking about interrelated systems where a new low side brings a new primers that can disrupt everything that happened before


description that he did was there any contention made about written description below that the three examples in the six of five patent were insufficient to describe


settled down and i would agree that there would be a burden on me on the plaintiffs to make a showing that somehow that was discriminatory in a way that the constitution prohibits it wouldn't be fatal to the discreet victoria ted would not be


said because you can't expect customers who are just buying a pint of beer every once in a while to bring this case the bar owner could have standing on their behalf so it is not making that claim it was asked many times by the court below and it does about that


two months and you know to take their good face analysis of the past and something material they have and do something with that they then had another three or four months before we brought a motion and they had a total of nine months from september


mr lee's arguments regarding rule fifty sixty i disagreed with what he said because if the way they framed the issues in their summary judgment


know i mean to be clear we're not saying that you avoid the written description analysis of it just what you are suggesting you do a different kind of written description analysis as i read you very i think what we're saying less rigorous analysis in fact well you know we're happy with


is interesting from the standpoint that it has three widely spaced halogen lamps that are intended to work as little spotlights and the writer of the schmidt specifications


about treating people with diabetes i instead have a guidebook and so the the standard for whether or not it works is whether or not it mitigates the effects of diabetes and puts and controls the blood sugar levels of the patients but we know the


injured there was an injury and nobody's proven if i understand correctly there were various theories but never was anything proven to be an injury you know there were in fact there was not for feeling that she had medical symptoms


then my client and all patents he's ave no recourse there's no other place to go and the case is that the at offices cited in support of what constitutes perceived wrong for example


oh do you now agree that you couldn't establish infringement under your patent since the the allegedly infringing device i understood it has a one point attachment


a service she says possibly or one of the other up so therefore the question you you can infringe you don't have to disclose every embodied men in the world to true


and get some result well it's a very skeptical view through this i think due process is an incident where i get to step up and have my day and chance do i get a guarantee is fundamental to the care of your particular result


is that


only to unfair labor practices and there are two mechanisms in order to handle procedurally unfair labor practices up fair labor practices you mean to argue only arbitration to arbitrations


with the fed with the federal labor relations authority can i ask one quick question just moving on to another issue assuming we were to agree with you on this point then we're left with the question of how the border itself in this case implicated in


how that the well is not only that maybe it may be due to cater skipped over some segment of the document but the document itself appears from all evidence to have been before the just right but the


overwhelming and any error was harmless the medical testimony was that this injury occurred this spiral fracture was indicative of child abuse that would require some force because this child was not ambulatory


find to support the judgment of it clearly in this case this young man had great hate for this teacher anyone who does what he did in the words that he


found out that people beyond the group that he had intended to see the page knew about it is absolutely right when he created that page he didn't intend to go into school the next day and tell people that he had done it but the reason that he did it


she identified as harris and we know council signed an affidavit for the post conviction petition saying that if he had known what jane ways actual admission to the state was before trial he would have called her as a witness but you see he only does well here there would


reasonable and to make a determination of whether the reason we have to know exactly why counsel made that strategic decision and we don't have that on this record you need to have an evidentiary hearing to determine that i would like to reserve a little time for a bottle so we're


exactly the things that miller said are very relevant to the determination of whether a child should be afforded the prospect for release before death no illinois court in a published opinion has yet addressed whether


whatsoever in this decision that's that goes to the mirror is that goes to whatever the dispute is between the parties let the french words resolve one can't decide these issues in a vacuum we have to know what's official before cases


possible prejudice is simply to give you an i pad or an instruction one point zero one which the state did not even request in this case which is to tell a jury you are not to concern yourself with punishment and sentencing and it was if they did not get that your honor


i had propounded requests to it bitch and you would read all of these previous facts which are in my opinion factual the order was directed to me to turn over those documents


authority and the judge mackey did got abuse his discretion in decline to stay that's what you held you were cited a lot of facts quite appropriately but you didn't decide those issues because they weren't before


now there was the merger argument that was brought up in the briefs counsel argue that that the rest of the closing statement merged any agreements and so basically


beyond deciding what's the standard of care and that's the standard view and that's against manifest when the evidence and then just looking at the evidence you can see that the judge kirby did reject the


contest it is now dead issue here meaning they're not contesting liberty mutual reiterates the point here is set out below the hydrogen induced cracking is city brewing skin tension and for the


that i don't read that that authority in that room i will i know you refer to clinton's yes we refer to claims and i will say that you view in a in candor i think you probably have the better of this argument


but there's nowhere to return to is that we were seeking a return at the case is already over so why should we simply consolidate this appeal with the now pending appeal from the jury for it and try to address the issues in the context of


evidence was so weak in addition of the problems in the state's tests testimony you have no incriminating statement on this report as we have there's no a physical evidence linking him to the offense and even the trial court sentencing told mr porter if you are


employed by employers that are covered by the act who don't half suffer not sovereign immunity but if it what you're really saying is it's a tacit acknowledgement that sovereign immunity doesn't attach


twenty eight was within the statutory framework that it wasn't up it i don't know if they said it was a point they said the that it really wasn't in farm i'm not i'm using that word myself but this


notation in the commission's decision that states that the specific peer reviewed journals that are discussed in the briefs were not attached as evidence well


lag we're talking about ninety days during the period where is the trial judge found in there who says that that could have had an impact on the other tenants in the end you have to look at the time they had reached that agreement


thousand and nine the arguments that were being made that he was making then prior to the july two thousand and nine date not get to that subject matter jurisdiction issue in a minute but the argument they were making is that you base it on a race track and that


is untimely especially when what the board did is actually very helpful thing they handed out the decision ahead of time allowed us to comment on it and we argued based on the board basically saying here's a step memorandum here's what we're going to be ruling i think tell us how


point in time of prior eligibility two thousand and six so in the language of logic that was a sufficient condition to trigger application of the redistribution was but the


court never said it was a necessary condition that being a licensee in the year when enactment is a necessary condition for application of the redistribution was under the two thousand and six act or the two thousand and eight act and of course the statute never says that


can't you go to trial on may sixteenth what is it about the late disclosure albeit late now that it's late what is the reason the council never stood up and said i can't go to trial on monday because because i'm surprised by the witnesses now because they were all


of course yes and then just very quickly in terms of the sank yeah no requirements which the court specifically mentioned that she had reviewed in respect to what she did find that this convict whereas complete this obedience liberal without any reason expressed


wouldn't you argue there was still a question material fact as to whether or not the lights were at working based on the may testimony that was presented absolutely i mean we in this business we believe that the lay testimony the facts and circumstances all provided at least a genuine issue


normal part of litigation not attending to discovery requests yes it is but not when the discovery request is based upon an allegation known to be false of committing committing felony conduct there you are


cancer building and again with that we're not here arguing that because quite frankly we can't we not at this point where we can appeal that part of judge be less or do we disagree with and we've said so but that's not really what's before this court ruling


into much the arbitration agreement it's before you it's clear they have the language she was talking about electing and so on it's not the actual language here there's there's a provision that specifically talks about counterclaims to foreclosures that's apple that's crystal clear


you know contract was the result of money being old in the old gray and football says there was never any money owed there was no contract that wasn't performed that resulted in


has lost the opportunity to discover what expectations in treatment were necessary for him to get conditional release or discharge at a later date now at trial respondent had no motive to cross examine the state's


gave him the agreement and read it to him in spanish later testified that he may have been on vacation on the day that he signed the agreement and he may not have had a chance to read it to him so i


this case and the lane first half will said you have to apply this i s o very narrowly because it's in derogation of the common law and so they didn't extend the right to recovery from purchasers who are named in the staff


and if i may i'd like to reserve five or five minutes of the fifteen minutes very good


the other remaining two points i was going to make very quickly are that we've heard a lot about an eight month the way but i would submit that nowhere in the statute is there any sort of


if an accident occurs midair with under where the student pilot and an instructor hired by franklin or employed by franklin would there be coverage under the hallmark policy


me i think again looking at the looking at the statute as a whole this one the other three seat notwithstanding this show also language i mean what are you running into then is a train wreck if you go ahead on collision with


statute had been made then that would be on the person who didn't appear however in this case what we had was a client who initially responding to the attorney's petition


hurting other children or other staff members you do it that way ok but you don't grab someone by a joint you grab them by you know take them by the shoulder and move them away because we don't want kids to get hurt and we don't have an argument here that this was physical restraint right


is bound to follow in and that's what we do out there a lot of cases that you know get decided one way in two or three years latest report says no the we're going to decide those cases a different way but that doesn't help the


know anything about it i mean presumably is that the type of thing that should have been fleshed out at the trial court i think the reason they didn't flush it in the trial court is they assume that the statute which case the


well you know this isn't my gun i don't know what happened but it's not in the state charges when away and then it's undeniably proven that he had permission under the state's theory the would be would be able to charge and find him guilty even though it's conclusively proven that he


applied comply with the statute we believe that it did but then when you start looking at the facts of the case did the committee received a notice that said you follow this improperly


find that the board abused its discretion by issuing the minimal penalty or any penalty at all these has already been argued here that there was an abuse of discretion even so it was reasonable for them to give the


card name it appears above the billing address and appears above the credit card name so that was the evidence that she put forward all the chi rela testified is well there's two separate fields but he actually was unable to testify affirmatively that she had provided her


court you know i think there's cases where the court has accepted jurisdiction but a but in terms of you know where there is a remailer and i'm not aware of any case so what we have here is we we have the stone notice of


of my knowledge and i actually that was a concern of ours when we were doing the briefing which is why we identified her by her initials and c but later as i was looking at the record there's no indication that there was anything you know that there was the concern that your


in the end though it doesn't make any difference in my mind because what petitioner was saying in his deposition is boy if i had known about this clacks to row drug lab stuff it certainly would have given me pause but


policy i think that the state's interest in the courts are both become clear when you consider two well established precepts that the supreme court applies in school desegregation cases the first


the status of those efforts so what one would expect in a remained of that nature is a court order that requires the school district to report regularly to the court and that specifies what information it must supply in those reports and that's not what you


on the state's education policy progress so the damage is already done and of course it invites repetitive litigation to sum up in the remainder of my time your honor if the


based on the residual folks the capacity with the additional limitation no without without yes there were part of that so that's how you carry your burden that this person could work is that question that answer it there's such jobs


should not entertain any of those issues but beyond that point is the fact that clearly based on the record before you there is more than ample evidence to show that the hearings officers


the machine wasn't working that way as opposed to work at the mine when certainly by the time captain lang lower said go around the second time because there was it's not because he could see anything it's because because of the urgency in the captain's voice or what was it well though he could see he could see i


ready to proceed proof say he would be expected to proceed to trial the following day making clear he'd have no time to prepare if you choose to proceed through say the district court denied him his right to meaningfully represent himself so i want


acknowledge that the court referenced extreme hardship the entirety of this record was based on the possibility standard if you go back i got a variation on this possibility stand and the judge clearly says i've got to decide whether it's plausible


spouse who live in the united states is also a mexican citizen and does not have any sadness to be here his children can only put titian from mr brock to a chain legal permanent resident status and once they turn twenty one there's no


to rob and assault ok but so that you're talking about the conspiracy charge yes the other offenses the knowledge we know as a model matter of such it still matters in the assault charge because well it doesn't it is not


now somehow doesn't that mean that's not a crime and it's not the conspiracy that was charged that he was on notice over that he was defending against the conspiracy that was charged was


your burden to demonstrate the disability right correct the i can look at this record and say that the doctor that the ail jay was absolutely compelled to accept the reports from your he is compelled to


but once the woman there's a little more evidence than that oh yes your honor and she saw a man dragging a woman by the hair and putting her in this particular apartment and then she heard a lot of banging noise


because you would she apply as i understand it like you're telling him right she applied in two thousand and nine for a disability carries ending in two thousand i don't even know you could do that that is correct


enough you know it's not enough the regulations require that there must be medical findings and objective data that first show the existence of an impairment and then only then can you look to the


that the government submitted evidence that was an contradicted that signatures on loan applications were forged and this court has held in united states versus blacks that a signature constitutes a means of identification because there's no evidence


beaten that is the best evidence in the record in the pretrial record you have to rely on the record were a court of appeal correct or what is what in the record is there besides simeon for a moment that what you just talked about is in the


it's it is not a duty as such to pay it was a windfall it's we company we gave you money and the record should be clear that the allegation here is that the insurance company did pay money


to tell them oh i can find in your record is that the attorney tells them well i've checked they still have a website and they're still in business i would there was actually more than that that we cited in our opening brief because that was just the one lawyer tell me where in the


why but that seemed there was going financial issues for him but the the key issue here is the court has identified as the statute of limitations and the burden of proof plaintiffs in the appellants have suggested that the burden of proof


we had that exchange of looks that sounds accurate there's nothing indicate he went to the gas station first me i couldn't hear that there's nothing to weigh into it that he went into the gas station before he went to the corner to look around in his


say perhaps under the precedence the touching the white line might be in itself sufficient under ran perhaps to justify it and maybe under oath


if based on the totality of the circumstances and the swerving into the far glowing three times led the officer to believe he might be intoxicated that would suffice and we have


respect to a retrospective application of a decision your honor the answer to that question is found in one of this court's cases hurriedly versus south carolina to some company one eighty three f two d one twenty five


price and then let me just add another quick part of that question is is it fair enough to look retrospectively at that as opposed to what was happening at the time it is because us steel and still going to get the fair price for ten mil products


otherwise but let's take that all and say that those prices were artificially high or anything else there's no testimony to substantiate that but let me just take it one step further and let's put in the notion that


o of u s steel was concerned that u p i was full and want to know why it was getting that business that inference if you got your deposition i mean it seems like your major theory right now is that this spot market sell it is the evidence of the conspiracy but you never asked anyone in


permitted under california law and california law has a very very comprehensive scheme to regulate marijuana american medical marijuana and part of that is providing for this affirmative defense that would be


month period of delinquency that is accurate and we're disputing over adding a month or two to that to make it a seventeen or eighteen month delinquency period there cannot be any damages and the evidence that ins in the record on that is from two


your honor the document that you discussed in the section of the r one seventy eight is the section that we think is at best a veg i mean that is the reason why in this johnson called to confirm and that's what how do


rules that pertain to sources that were not considered agricultural under previous law but are considered agricultural under s b seven hundred


to install control technology to reduce emissions so that benefits the environment because there's less air pollution entering their base and it would require the source to buy more reductions from another source so that there is an actual net decrease in the


prosecutor purposely discriminated on the basis of race during jury selection seven jurors are at issue and if the prosecutor struck even one of them on the basis of race that violated the equal protection clause i want to focus in particular on


ways people who claim to be in retail don't go into any depth in that


it's a yes because once you enter into a negotiation you're allowed to under the act section two fifty two of the telecom act you're allowed to petition for arbitration if you can't resolve the issues that are being negotiated