happen are as in two thousand and one clearly said you can't it's inherently unreasonable to hold guns even from a distance in that case a five six to three or four feet at a suspect head unless you have a skate of


between the agency and the and the plaintiff in that case and yet the administrative tort claim was one that just simply was not received though it was


and two and she outlines in her declaration on paragraph seven that said tab forty two the communications but she did ultimately receive that it's not very specific as to when but


were determined long before the pedialyte they were determined long before the p t a but in that regard i don't think there's any difference from base more days more the salary structure before title seven was perfectly legal it was


policy longer calculates the disability the way it used to and there is no current discrimination that's that's how it's just what's wrong with


the first contract year was entirely post bankruptcy one of the allegations of the complaint that is just in comprehensible as that is the allegation of paragraph five that the proof


may may take issue with anything that he did that it is absolutely undisputed that that corby did not like him before this process began and it had nothing to do with age and there's no there's no evidence that


relied heavily on the fact that the claimant there and it her ios the proceedings made it very clear that she was not pursuing any monetary relief and those facts were among the facts


didn't just go off on some wild hair and we had an extended conversation about this at the time of the hearing in the district court and my answer could only be that is because the people who


are not insubordinate yet and they don't get punished they don't get disciplined what happens is mr beverly has called that of the a better manager so we're going to have you we're going to have you


first and foremost because in contrast to all of these cases the sum and substance of mr beverly's evidence and i use that word in quotes that race played any part whatsoever in the employment decisions he challenges


his innocence here or it's even more removed he just wants to lawyer


what you're saying it can be either occupations or numbers i think it is probably the language supports occupations i guess i was kind of conceding you a little too quickly there are one hundred thousand jobs because all of the language range of work is defined in social


of twenty seven hundred forty five acres so that's the total acreage and then what you have the second set of figures which is spartan referred to are the amount per acre both in terms of the amount that you can


the term and the transportation last number would go up and down depending on circumstances ok that that's what they're fully entitled to do yes why is it not a plausible reading of the degree to say ok let's assume that they're using the land the water


question over follows pearson incher kosky in the very recent tripoli rocketry case in the d c circuit which we brought to this court's attention last week it was just decided in february and all of those cases


thousand dollars a month no reason to think it's bad times there's no market for what he can do at the moment but why do you say that for the rest of his life it's going to be clear he's not going to be able to earn more


like the test the bankruptcy court expressed throughout the trial and even in its written opinion and in prior opinions by the same bankruptcy court the in re patterson has recently expressed disagreement with with the way bruner


my understanding is that when actually congress passed the one before probably one thousand and four they considered a limiting the undue hardship standard but again i think if you look at the program as a whole instead of looking at this harsh result it's really good and saying we give you all these really


communication so i did appeal all of those that is in the record but i also want to say one thing about her contract striking that is extremely important in this issue for defendants defendants have said that nobody knows if it's really effective and the have sort of the little the issue of


lesser included offenses of each of those eleven charges had mr bill are done more he would have essentially played his client straight up to the indictment and he didn't do


present tense of her and this is an agreement to two chips it's basically acquiring licensing privileges for those fonts it seems to me that as of the time the licensing agreement was entered into the fonts hadn't been incorporated into any


place your saying that i'm american national excluded the you didn't answer my question about whether or not you are referring to the exclusion for a for a single incident or for the combined


indorsement because it doesn't change or modify so the one we're relying on is one more example that might say we don't cover losses to all books there might be an additional


duty on the issue of proximate cause and on the issue of rule fifty sixty and i'd like to deal with the issue of duty first if i make it in every case that's been cited by


undertake professional responsibilities where that is part of the instructions and you use those you exercise your professional discretion and judgment when you do that and just as unaffiliated if those obligations create


constitutional and the sophos whether or not the process is constitutionally is a federal question but whether or not there is a property right is a matter of state law the constitution does not bestow this


sentence so what it means is the interest acquired by a d m were not securities in the interests that were sold were securities because the parties who owned the interest beforehand were in fact depending on the


bar against lawsuits against m q but would not give the patient as an alternative method of solving it disputes i think that is this is just act as a total


it does in a sense because if you look at a duty to defend it under state law it depends upon which state in the ninth circuit you're looking at but if there's any possibility of


to reach are right because if i were my recollection of the of the facts is that he was acting as a cover officer for both one of the one of the contact officers in this house bedroom and also one outside of her bedroom so he was kind of standing in


in our view that it's not that it's not germane to the issue before the court or wait a minute wait a minute i really don't understand this you talk about the


have to do is read one paragraph and employment agreement one paragraph in section sixteen that's all you have to do this has nothing to do a sophisticated parties today and even does nothing to do necessarily


are going all over the the map on this one on that but the to the extent that there's that there is a question left open as clearly there there was in that case as as your honor says


means substantial impairment of the structural integrity of a building or part of a building render such building or part of a building unfit for its function or unsafe and under the clear language of the insurance policy here must be more


settle with the injured party even if the insured as insurer isn't going to pay that injured party so that you can go after the insurer later that's only part of the point of a reasonable mis hearing the primary point


police on the scene she says apparently calmly i have the right of way i had a green light i was going forty miles an hour i was blindsided that is


when that from the defense point of view negate the state of mind that is necessary there for malice or even even arguably for nick with that they want to argue it wasn't negligent homicide it might your honor in a situation where the evidence


petitioner filed a notice of appeal everybody acted as though that order was the final judgment so the court said there was no there was no error in treating that and because there was no separate judgment issued they weren't going to rely on that this is a similar


clearly high that the claim of judicial misconduct or


process requires the court to conduct a competency hearing so a spontaneous and so that's that address is that the case that i rely on for the argument that the voluntariness of the


security really ninety six three p which says if the adjudicator finds that such symptoms cause a limitation or restriction having more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to do basic work activities did you take it or must go onto the other


and could i ask one of the question is if it's ok you sent to us there and it's called who are tension the case and gary versus lattimer yes and i read


zavala basically says that district judges need to explain why they are departing so that it permits meaningful appellate review is your challenge here to the fact that he didn't


think i can boil it down to just a couple of propositions a combination of factors were mr harris was deprived his right to counsel and also the issue relating to the rule eleven violation i think is worthy of mention


the defendant has to show that but for the error he would have gone to trial and that kind of has into those comments that i just made and the air has to be such that it undermines confidence in the proceedings arguments that arguably could have had an impact are not


there are i think it's simply the fact that that attorney is a state employee that is their representation is in state courts their care of the scope of the representations in state court that's their


fairness is the is the the defendant petitioners responsibility to show that there are there was harmless by showing that there was a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict


accidental which occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a crime or a robbery is murder in the first degree when the perpetrator had the specific intent to commit such robbery and i would note that for the record in terms of dealing with a felony murder issue and it and the


on page sixteen


is becoming more complex and it makes my head hurt when i think about it but i think this actually does satisfy it for a couple of different reasons and i think the argument sort of breaks down into two


term let me perhaps the answer the question this way when you're saying alternative elements and if i understand correctly where rand and taking us it's effectively


all of this according to dr paul schneider who the male j zone vocational expert testified was a very respected psychologist in the computer community and was very good at helping people get back to work with disabilities


counter argument is often is that listen he rejected dr snyder dr snyder said he couldn't work so therefore by extension he rejects dr colby although he didn't mention dr colby he doesn't even talk about him that's not the way it works because the


with this guy he's got a lot of disabilities he can't work he can't sustain work i'm sorry aren't they his current age he was he was thirty five when the herring somethings it was in his mid thirty's you


intimidated from filing ballot measures due to harassing litigation by the city the district court mr read the complaint because it only saw this cases about appealing three state court decisions instead this case is about damages for not being able to file


be just a permanent fixture in boulder city whenever a petition comes out she'll challenge it whenever we get a petition that we think she might challenge you know we'll put it to the voters it's going to be this back and forth so i agree with that


is do we have the staffing in light of where the fire is and what the activity is to keep managing this fire effectively for a while and far use and then the fifth criterion is are there other agency administrator issues that preclude wild land


and then no unsecured loans so there's representation a subtle way that you're learning from read the offering document he says the only representation is no mortgage you want to know and i understand that i understand that's his


comes from that you can argue that the violations of the deed of trust act constitute violations of other acts including the consumer protection act consistent with the freest only if you are only maintaining your c p a you're letting your letting the d t


or whether you can make a claim because of there was no it was no way for closure and the is gone to a judicial foreclosure those questions are are still at the core


made and she chose not to brief them


percent interest was enough on that loan where they had all these other victims well that's absolutely right and what the jury did is heard a lot of evidence that would clear it clearly has supports the unjust enrichment claim i mean so


they were analyzing it as they treated mr back as the same as everybody else who lost money or made money when in fact he's a subsequent transferee not an investor not an initial transferee and if we want commerce to work if we want people not to be afraid to


the heavy pack each incident occurred in may of two thousand and eight and following that were all of the outrageous events


regardless of ownership that the broad organic act that the birdie applies where necessary to protect public lands or park lands and resources so there is there there are three separate ways in which this


jurisdiction argument was raised the court the court addressed it right but as we've been discussing there was no effort on your part to clarify the matter after the judge's decision issued or to signet a document that would


jury was presented with the e mail correspondence so it had all the subject other than that with all this and with you know the act of actually meeting at mcdonald's there was reason to believe that mr stern thought peter was under


that any time they took cash out of the drawer they were to enter that in the aloha system under the heading of mike's training mode mike being michael mcclellan and although the mr mcclellan attempts to


he install a system regardless of telling him to keep some in cash aside to make payments the system recorded all of the money coming in in complete contrast to the practice he


every episode of disputes between coworkers in the public employment context and that's far afield of what i said the doctrine of lies to your honor the defense made that argument and i think that due respect is a gross trivialization of what's


city set forth in our view improperly the city as our briefs rely on submitted a thousand of a thousand pages of documents which really clarifies that this in fact is a case that should have a fully


never conceded that it's owned by the end tire membership of the club what i would concede is a few i asked a member of the outlaws who said they would tell you i think it's owned by the club


there the record will show during the depositions that the home invaders left that gun there they didn't have a gun it was left there by the home invaders why they did it we have no idea but they did there was some a


until after the police left correct but as the district court correctly pointed out in reviewing the record that position the november two thousand and fourteen affidavit is flatly contradicted by other aspects of the sworn


talked about distributing money for cypre and this court said that needs to be reconsidered because it's not just the big fund of money to be handed out or people want it needs to go to the class members first it needs the benefit the class members most


right number because of the timing of the statement thank you ok thank you very much both


insist on representing myself but court then admonishes him that i think this goes without saying but this is the worst idea you have ever had and he said with that admonition do you still want to represent yourself and he said


namely freeman saying have you gone to you know literally always me that money have you gone to get it from him and then in the third phone call civil mcclatchy reports to freeman that the police had stopped the car in which


freeman were talking about the quantity that was possessed that day and seneca williams interpreted the phone call and said well that quantity was x amount of got it one hundred twenty five grants or something like that unlike count


in the scheme to defraud yet mr mr jones received a four point hand spent for the organs or mr jackson who was found at least by the court statements to be equally as culpable only received a three point so we believe


so i think the case needs to be remanded for clarification perhaps there was something more that wasn't a numerated i will i will note that the reference that's made to the the false statements and the


statement with respect to some quantity i think that creates an internal inconsistency that needs to be clarified and it just wasn't with respect to this this thing about the benefit the thing to remember is that if he if he hadn't said anything to the government there wouldn't be any relevant


drug transactions and then incorporating that finding in the judge's section thirty five fifty three a analysis that finding was based on the defendant's own statements these are statements that were made on multiple prior occasions


under i would say the federal rules supersedes or there are many rules that bend for good cause right typically that determination is left to the sound discretion of the district


and it has no tax if it sells them it realizes income but no revenue so there's this giant pot of money sitting over here that's never subject to the to the agreement but could greatly increase income


argument and i asked this court to affirm judge reagan's or anybody has any questions firmly now thank you and so far thank you


suit was not filed until thirteen months after you had all of those records and that's why we're having this debate now that's why we're having this debate your


zero eight nine specifies in section d to no employee shall be discharged by the village except at the direction of the village administrators depending on


of the evidence i would like to begin this morning by addressing the question of the drug detection canine unit so why is it that the district where it was mistaken to think


a problem with that in terms of his training he has the problem that comes from the failure to get any kind of a test to determine the low threshold for what he if he's so sensitive he'll alert to the five dollar bill you have in your pocket your honor


which is not the same thing that he's trained to recognize when he lurks so that and beezer who testified said that this is an appropriate method of of of conduct for and handler so on


can't be no less than the first he compares it to diversion and he says he cannot be what she got because their records are so disparate right and because she had a drug problem she sees her sentence as different and i actually asked him to conflate


strip the issue was just cited though by the district court on what interest was transferred by the term right of way in that deep from herman fassel to fred owen in one nine hundred sixty five and the indiana courts have given us a general


here well i think the language in wilson is much too broad as this point recognizes it's a lot of look we were just a court of appeals we can't say we're sorry supreme court you just blew it we're not going to follow it we're going to do something else


baggage and and in rome for the transportation to madrid and they were acting as agent for american airlines because american airlines still another carrier right well it's another carrier does


apply and the department of transportation further states that the marketing carrier will issue the tickets for transportation on line meaning if american


flooring contractors except with cash that the characteristics of that cash made it very probative we're not talking about him going to the bank deposit in cash taking it you know taking it out putting it in a briefcase in the way that you would if you're you know


i mean do you not agree that the statement was copa turi i believe it was i am not sure that i see the distinction it was in called but tori and maybe one of the reasons why is because it


punishable by law and a person has expectancy upright privacy expectancy under the law that they can resume their their conduct without the intrude intrusion of others not only your spouse but


six situation and i will just briefly also mention because i know my time is up that we also hear of a heightened knowledge requirement with respect to the knowledge of news and where we're is where is the allegation that


morning your honour's may please the court john terry for the united states focusing first on the issue of mr cooper sentencing which the court is just getting into right now the district court did make an individual lies finding with regard to mr capers and without it can i find the reasonably foreseeable side


to may sixth two thousand and thirteen when the limitations period was set to expire and four three were sent after all there's nothing in the record that's ever been offered to say what those letters were we have if you look at the sick chronological case summary from the post


the officers who also testified talked about the pressures of being in this neighborhood and being involved in gang activity and that in particular my client was one of the younger individuals who was being influenced by


and in fact it was on recommendation of hers that my client be placed outside of his mother's home these are things that did not happen and so when i'm looking back at all of this and i fully understand that at age fifteen


funding policy this plan did have a funding policy it has a provision for the payment of benefits it's section section five point three through five point six this case is not a deductibility case this case is about whether or not the


opposite but i acknowledge your honor the difference is a difference is that the merits decisions were rendered but the courts including the supreme court who have opined about what tony means what the statute means


jurisdiction don't distinguish whether the merits were decided one way or t'other or for whom they are the the courts or interpret what the statute says and it says when you get jurisdiction on the court of appeals it's


afraid and that he was making this up he said that he did not have the didn't meet the threshold for actually being tortured which is different based on the facts subject to remaining questions


under the provisions that we've been discussing here who is an insured just say that we're not named in the declaration page or a named insured simply completely ignores all of the provisions of


recognizing the fundamental importance of the standing gate keeping functioning and determining whether the plaintiff plaintiffs had met their burden of coming forward with specific allegations and facts


hundred ten at with terrorists also and because shocked and but as the testimony developed at the suppression hearing however the argument about


away from him and in fact was convicted of resisting arrest so we have a resisting arrest crime in addition to the disturbance crowd and i think this court has decided in several cases gaddis versus red for township and personally


had they not i i know i can see that you can say well they hadn't cost them plated selenium discharge except with regard


operation generally understood now that's reason the reason why contemplation in that context would be whether there was a general understanding of pollutants coming from a mine is a more general inquiry and the general permit doesn't dissipate that the agency will be


that they're trying to use macros a back door to do that they're trying to do it in a way that's fundamentally at odds with the clean water act now they make an argument that in addition to this conflict that the conflict doesn't exist


to think that there would have to be some thought given to have the tests fit into this situation and the senate is just not very good when you get to this part of the well that's why


this case and guilty to account having to do with the stinger missile it did your honor so why was the district judge supposed to ignore that and the district court is not supposed to ignore that


sentencing entrapment or manipulation that's going to be true in every case and i thought that frequently sentencing entrapment claim has to do with quantity of drugs that somebody has been involved with


stop or you can have a passer by see that somebody has is walking up the driveway that doesn't have a fence across it or walking through the space in the fence where somebody was able to put a boat or pushing


be controlling he's he's asked to represent himself arguably on the twenty eighth and the judge said no so why why is that make a difference that then after that he's still quibbling about this lawyer the that


individuals who may have may have testified before the grand jury and the government made the point at the time that there were individuals who were called and subject to cross examination by by the defendant on as as to those


application of the peerage doctrine arising from the circuits case law there were services failed to show and indeed could not show that a pelleas actions violated clearly established constitutional rights now


repackaged and repackaged and even weighed for redistribution at that residence the amount of volume and frequency of the shipments demonstrated that the drug related activity was a primary or principal use not just a collateral


thousand dollars in cash in you know a substantial portion of that last and final delivery and those lot of those things show it was a drug house you're aren't sure those are tools it was a drug operation and he's


courts should be able to make that the reason these other cases are helpful is because they've kind of first of all to disabuse us of the notion that the fact that it's a family home precludes an application of the enhancement


i do not think she was under arrest and i don't think that the case of oft cited by the appellant in their brief indicates that she was under arrest during the traffic stop


if it's not exhausted then we can do a ryan stay in a bay because you pointed out that i think you used the example of checkers and chess that maybe maybe that was a checkers claim when it


back quote for the district court to determine in first instance whether carter is entitled to a writ based on his counsel's performance at the mitigation stage of the proceedings that's pretty direct and i think merged judge merb


it's not about the stuff that's been briefed really no it's not it well right well that's the answer yes or it's about their global plan and my experience with this day in a bay thing first of all it's the dish records when


down and you'd say show what you presented in state court and then you'd offer some more and then and then judge merz would would would whether the state courts were reasonable or unreasonable for dying the client but the d one standard after penholder changed


doesn't answer why there's reason to think there is a false statement in the letters right now you got the letters this wasn't something the had to track down you receive the letters you all know your business it would have been the easiest thing in the world


question is before the court is whether there is any testimony at this trial or anywhere in the record that the allegations in these letters were falls in it's important i think to note that at the time that i've checked at scuse me that wyndham objected


positions have specifically encompassing district in redistricting in apportionment but the u s supreme court clearly say is that it's well known that those activities have significant political impact


office where the where association with a particular party is necessary to the efficient performance of the job and that's the requirement which category the district court put these jobs have over two two and three


enough frequency to show a severe impairment but the claimant argues that the claim that he had at least twelve appointments page eighty to ninety six to eighty six five fifty eight and two seventy four show these additional treatments by the psychiatry ists


he's really been doing badly for months but he wasn't able to call i mean he did go three four times a year so he clearly when he needed treatment he could call and i mean the latest notes even say that he you know he's had he's been doing well he's had very mild


to the control by when his brother charles wasn't available mr britt is own politike sharon also supports the district court's pill calculation he stated that he did have a pill addiction and given this addiction he would need to be


record six eighteen the fourth day of the trial pages one ninety seven through two of nat so i believe that the appropriate standard of review for mr washington is to know vote we look at this


know it's not in the record but he knew not to call it there i didn't make the motion to sever at the conclusion and i think that was one of the basis that you know the prejudice that happens now with respect to the variance


these were insults they weren't actually threats and the judge in that case actually authors of the other is an expert witness who is going to testify that in his culture those would be considered or could be considered insults and not threats and let him withdraw


but there is this mountain of evidence against what he did say mountain but there's all the evidence against the other individuals that just keeps rolling along at the end you know it's you know it's clear this is sort of swept up and painted with that same


through twenty two so you have all of those now allegations about post operation due process and then you have this outlier here the talks about justification including notice and that's my explanation for what that means and there your honor as


i'm yes we hired in this case peter's right to influence judge the lawyer and we knew what he was doing the whole problem to be met is not this case here and i know it's simply napoles understand that that's why i said it was a hypothetical and not this case


cooper deal as influencing the stock prices the plaintiff is trying to say it should not be the court should also look at paragraphs are very fair and you put your question no thank you thank your


have come to a different conclusion the one i'm advocating for however those courts as well as the court below urge in several important respects first this is conceded the knot of channels or an instrument held his case but a substantial


let alone a substantial on an interstate commerce second who would otherwise would exceed the outer limits of the commerce clause by giving congress power to displace any local regulation that impacts the prices paid for real estate simply because of


the financing of the mortgage that's the raise on tetra of fannie mae and freddie mac to collect capital from money centers in the united states new york cincinnati chicago los angeles and deploy it throughout the country


how severe that impact was on the video because it's not shown in response i have to i have to respond here one has said again i go back to the fact that it's their burden to prove


was a court recognized does not mean that that's necessarily the only ends through which we must look at it and i think the question you're being asked is a more fundamental and really goes not with the district court thought you can issue with the


meaning of a contract term in other words what was the meeting of the term usual operate the business of thanks in the same way as was operated pre closing and then will that affect what the numbers and they are now report it would affect the numbers so it's a dispute


something that would have been taken into account yes siding whether to give except it's a response course we know all that have been by given to the grand script or a transcript of where the the court said


analyzed the factors under judicial of stoppel the sir reply was essentially only one paragraph that spoke to one of those factors and it was clear from the status conference that the government's argument was that the


and the evidence and testimony below show that lady's pro shop in the florida defendants knew of golf she can knew of its relationship with jamie sedaka in two thousand and nine which was pretension so those are two of the five


matter is submitted and we thank you for your argument the court may now that you're in court


sargents where mr bailey was assigned that has a warehouse where people are driving forklifts where they want to do some of this drug testing so that they can keep the workplace site i think it guts their ability to do that because anybody can come up and say


applying for the warrant did not act in good faith and the reason why i'll try and get you quickly which is that this was not an ordinary investigation they had buy in from the executives of the d o j it was an easy decision


whether what happened thereafter was proportional to what was it mid lee a confusing accusation of petty theft if the accusation had been clearer why did the officers not rest of the time


prior to that point piers was not it's undisputed that piers was not he he was fleeing from the police at that point and and and a suspect in flight is not seized under a stablished supreme court precedents


a specifically removed from federal controls which they have not done for marijuana so we would argue that the minimum necessary criminal conduct would be sharing a drug in private that's less dangerous than marijuana


removal of a deliberating juror his girlfriend had been arrested and mistreated by police as here the circumstances are even more extreme because as the juror himself who suffered this type of police misconduct and not his girlfriend


had he been formed as he should have been the result would have been anything i think that's a question that would have taken significant counseling it's a more complex question than just you had a gun when


is last year judge donnelly wrote but in that particular case the letter actually used the safe harbor language and she said obviously there's no misrepresentation that this is a one time on the law for because it used to sit in our village we just ask about the other claim


prohibited as well as actions that are not intended to be taken then after mr kleiman who's filed a complaint brought us in as co counsel and we looked at it based upon what we were able to ascertain for


fundraiser versus composition of applied to the doma commerce clause the standard of review guides under rule twelve b six the court is limited to the four corners of the complaints to review the factual


investing parties as to the real tech case looked to be to be honest the realtek case involved sixty notes that were pooled so that they could be invested and that's not what happened here there were two notes that were too long so there were


they have to pay that long back and even i guess i'm wondering you know if there was a if there were misrepresentations that affected the bond holders they would


on the basis of the testimony of sarah that he didn't they didn't split the payment after the st night and i disagree with that


courts ability to utilize the full breadth of the code to address bad faith conduct chapter thirteen is for honest is for honest and conscientious betters it is not a safe haven for a bad faith better to abuse


the st question is no and this court decided over sixty years ago that the answer to the nd question is also no i'm referring of course this court's decision in united states versus golden which we cited in our motion to dismiss


it raises important issues of a defendant's right to access to the court to mount a defense and in this instance to challenge the whether the indictment


two challenge conditions was an abuse of the court the district court's discretion based on the record before the district court it was not and the reason for that is we do not have to dive too deeply into the record


twenty not but excuse me at the time he went to all the data retrieve the firearms he had previously signed a form th seventy three right which is the a t f form that he signed under penalty of perjury saying that if you're


record has come to a conclusion on a fee what is presupposed by that is that the district court has done a very good job of explaining it in the st place so in other words the district court has to exercise it is question having


knew this was never asked for an asylum application no i don't believe so your honor and i don't think either even the defendant has argued that they would have to not be aware of


organizational interest that we think is is addressed by this lawsuit we think that they have standing as a party challenging with the courts equitable jurisdiction an unconstitutional act by the executive


will provide some names where courts have effectively held that assuming you satisfy our tickle free standing obligations the district court found that here we don't think that that's seriously arguable as long as you


many many hours on this case on the case pending before judge bernie the putative class action individual suits have been brought by the by by prisoner plaintiffs and and steps have been taken in the interim to swash some of these


address two weeks before the trial was this gets canceled to start in may the government saw a permission from our state to testify about the defendant's prior instances where she assisted him with the handling of guns


that you then have an obligation to raise it and instead you want full with a bench trial you want to a whole bench trial without raising a personal jurisdiction issue that this court had told you you have available to you now so what's your response to because it wasn't available


thought the weight of authority was against you when this court says this is an open question you might have a coin auction at the hawk that says a party cannot be deemed to waive the jacksons or the benches which were not known


interest issue on a particular point when as judge cole found documents that should have been produced were never produced and the witness loss very difficult to establish a particular point when a witness lies throughout


aspect of it what we're challenging is that you have here a set of conditions that did we believe exceed the scope of what they could do however it also has to apply to the situations that we are telling this court i am here on and if i'm saying to you of coots one apply this


qualification that at one qualification show that her application had been granted so you are so there's conflicting information in the the


issue in this appeal and mr president to earlier and that is that mr can see there's liberty is not at stake he will not be released from custody if the court reaches the merits and rules in his favor nor will he suffer


the timeline of proceedings in the district court because i'd like to know how much you've done in the district court and also ultimately what i'd like to ask you to do is focus on the


harmed in the way that this financing convention recognizes by alleged money laundering n l c b the answer to that is clearly no because it was not terrorism financed by money laundering that l c d was injured


government he wants her to come get her to come get him she's riding in a car someone else is driving they don't bring him over the border they pick him up in the seneca rez close to the border and then they're stopped i don't think that evidence is


from one bank to another because of that was there then someone would be able whether or not it's appropriate for this quarter we have jurisdiction or whatever but at least someone would be able to look into this allegation


and the theme throughout much of the defense in this case was one of subjectivity that theme was to route the cross examination of the fingerprint evidence and continue through the closing argument the idea that mistakes could happen was a


the in this instance is this a violation of the state mortgage recording statute where the mortgage was recorded three months prior to the commencement of this action specifically the satisfaction was recorded on september nd


need nd on the question of severability here new york law is extremely clear that there's a strong presumption of severability because of the new york court's respect for the legislature's intent here and preserving what it can of the legislature's underlying judgment the language that's used in your cases


of the collective group of lawyers at the time of the court's feel ward of seven million dollars the lodestar for the collective group of plaintiff lawyers was about twenty eight million dollars so everybody was going to get paid


that defendant prominent will be receiving additional directorship after the merger of another conference a public company controlled by the controlling group as a quid pro quo the defendants misrepresentations and omissions about these facts


you know he's the former deputy mayor of our great city and we were perfectly it was precluded from doing that also that we believe was abuse abuse of discretion because if the jury heard those two experts we believe that the result would have


parents issued their notice of intent to enroll the student at private school is the critical period in terms of the thought thing whether the stipulated services were working and whether they were providing him with meaningful educational benefits


the only problem was they wouldn't provide it to mr deceived or an order to give him a fair hearing at that point the very nature of the questions i would urge your honor to consider we're investigatory rather than levying charges which is the


a deprivation of the child's pendency rights their complaints only allegation pertaining to the state agency is that the state agency certified mr brinkley out to serve to be eligible to serve as an impartial


of treatment is not working and you don't do anything to fix it


what we do in counterterrorism it's an intelligence world and investigator oliver from her military responsibilities knows that it's behind the scenes we are not operational we gather information and we pass it along i


level of generality they have an interest in passing those sort of laws or considering passage of the sort of laws that the requests here are pertinent to that that to that that purpose and when you actually see that the requests are so far afield from that a legit purpose i think you could


of these indicate a potential inability to participate in his defense and hugh what's also important here is that he was hearing voices despite apparently being on medication for his for his


the policy itself uses the exact same term oral or written publication of material to define the scope of both privacy offenses defamation offenses and as your author noted publications in


street and fractions testimony that that the firearm that rodriguez recovered in close proximity to the defendant matched the fire and she observed defendant carrying in the ad and the two stipulations regarding his


as far as defendant's claim that this somehow the kid defense attorney in the plot it does not even if you could possibly interpret this to mean that it was not the defendant's father and that it was defense


information and documents it is used through actual devices and things that exist in the physical world those things provide proper venue those of the criminal conduct which the constitution requires to be connected to the event that that person


restrictive alternative what the act had in mind and what happened here was the judge considered all the evidence and then gave a reason statement of why he was choosing the particular disposition he did it became even more clear


wagon was seen in the parking lot of at or near the time the restaurant was closing he knew about the bullet hole in the fryer hood and i'm saying both he and you know there's some indication they were coached in their confessions i mean they both


important the important load the load start here for this court's analysis today is whether he could show that there was this reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors he would have rejected the entire plea and just simply saying i


about the head and identified the planet that night from a voter ray we have two additional witnesses who identified the defendant from of a lineup several days later we have a multitude of evidence in this case that


is the court this is an attorney general carson griffis on behalf of the people in the midst of the mortgage foreclosure crisis the general assembly established two programs funded by fee and residential mortgage foreclosure actions


knowledge of the facts surrounding the impermissible feet clearly plaintiffs understood that they have to pay a fee we understand but the court fee they pay was a single scheduled see


grounds it's not required john or and the reason it's not required is because we always have that power we would have that power if we had never begun a three thousand four hundred and eighty five proceeding so the initial charging document does not have to tee up


convert that to a discipline it's simply not possible to do both at the same time subsection eight to is very clear the teacher must be made whole you cannot make a teacher


causation evidence was quite ample to support the jury's verdict the issue about the plaintiff raised three issues very briefly one was whether the court abused its discretion allowing the defense to present


deed on foregrounds and nancy they're paid or exempt that's one in two or it's fraud or they didn't name the party interested party in the publication notice now it's important here to know justice that when you


set forth is we do believe that twenty to eighty by language certificate or scuse me you so used to that certificate or indeed in this


that construction turns both the language of the statute as well as the legislative history on its head contrary to the appellate court argument into susan whether you look determine the language is clear and look at the


convictions he was arrested again in one thousand nine hundred and nine for possession of a controlled substance in two thousand and eight for a battery and he hasn't explained why he has not he was not convicted but he hasn't explained the circumstances surrounding this


it occurred one week after the incident and we can't discount webber's role as a forensic interviewer in this regard there is evidence in the record that she was conducting a forensic interview it's on page seventeen of my brief c thirty


hearings these hearings came on the heels of the recommendation by the discovery master retired judge sullivan that the palest be ordered to produce documents reflecting what rates palest expected to be paid by humana


pillows knew but hadn't yet revealed is that it had ordered destroyed all of the data held by g t a which came under the cover of that recommendation so the question of how judge shelley was going to handle judge sullivan's


that judge shelley asked edge of and questions and mr cycle said yes so judge shelley asked those questions of judge sullivan and judge field and said this is not a recommendation excuse me reconsideration of judge taylor's ruling so the


substitution have been appealed to this court so it's final we know that judge shelley did not commit any errors as to any of the other rulings so in that circumstance it really does not make sense to invalidate any of her rulings and i think to point this


at the time the contribution claim was filed there was a significant issue regarding the rights and obligations under a trust whether or not it was subject to a selective tender doctrine which really was an important issue to guide the rest of


trust mr scott it doesn't to do what it's me says it could have done and allocate the full million dollars to a single insured what is or what chip does is allocate equally it allocated


imposed simply because of steps for mandate the judge was therefore already determined that ten years in prison is the appropriate sentence for aggravated kidnapping under the range without the add on and this is so i see the same determination that the judge would have to make


not able to make an identification he firmly he said i did not see the murders and it wasn't you know there was no effort at that point or say twenty four hours later forty eight hours later two weeks later two months later there was no effort to go back and get a


automatically seem to encompass the possibility of a guilty plea petitioner it speaks in terms of the trial evidence and a comparison of new evidence to what was presented at trial it doesn't easily extend


guadalupe decision to suggest otherwise that he's dealt with an age discrimination claim and it dealt with a disability discrimination claim neither of those cases presented the critical public safety


the point i think the point is that when the parents realized that they had been left out of all this all these you know things that occurred with this man they were


then of course they have to have a full time position because their faculty member they get benefits and according to the bijan case it costs three times as much to


employee with less than you already to mean something different then a faculty member because otherwise it would have just said in the proviso clause provided that no non tenure faculty member


person can't sue you have written the key time statute where they have written a gate and provision out of this statute it cannot be what was written by the legislature and so the language is right there in section fifteen the relator is the person with the


but once the judge appointed granted he's in that case i'm protected by the same rules of davis and jackson and the other rules so throughout this case the judge said since mr ganesh is indigent that trumps all the


i'd like to move on to the issue of defense of the most time on which was the issue regarding judge lanterns exercise of discretion in this case which was completely proper


defender who was in the courtroom represented that he had a conversation with mr tice mr branch with mr greenwich and mr greenwich told him it was going to be at least six months that he was going to be gone


this he said it's necessary it's necessary to appoint me and mr tice you have


was because he was told that he had to have the public defender once your knowledge was read and if that is true and under those circumstances it would appear that his voluntary decision to plead guilty


over here on them he had seventeen that he wanted to substitute tyson for the case and she says that and sixteen or seventeen but then over on twenty four she says in effect so in effect he wanted to


record to call that into question as a matter of well the question is whether back credibility call should be viewed with closer scrutiny than credibility credibility


terminations impair their benefits the issue is whether the inequity of the statute impair their benefits in the cases that we've reviewed that the nd those statutes became effective people's benefits were either benefits or potential benefits


that and to claim that this is somehow reliance issue on eighty nine communication just isn't excessive but is better argument is not that it's better to sit well with a deadline deadlines mean what they mean


year sentence in the u s supreme court's been very clear it's a right that goes through appeal he was advised by his public defender who i'm sure if he was an effective attorney said look i don't know if i would do this if i were there even after having the advice


they wrote a check for five thousand dollars as a result of that military service and making it up as in it was said


we don't know because it's arbitrary under that tree


scandalous matter so while there may be a basis for creating a double entendre rule with respect to description it's because it takes it out of being merely the script there is no statutory basis to do that with respect to scandalous marc


demonstrate that the alternative me that this is you know a chocolate lava lollipop in the shape of a rooster so it sort of brings forward the alternative need right i agree with


argue that at the price data given how high it was what would have been at least in definitive of the information and that you could have gone to other export orders as compared to prices that they charge based on their


happened at every stage of the process in fact that's what you're asking us to do in your cross appeal to how do you respond to that argument well it's a different issue they have said that the hundred twenty two percent rate is so high that that is unconstitutional when it goes back on remand and congress wants a lower rate


your argument that the change from terminating for default to terminate your for convenience would constitute bad things now a no we don't but we certainly feel that subset so my argument here argument is


pharmaceutical world thirty years to do it there's absolutely no evidence your honor that there was meaningful motivation or a good cry or there's no motivation you've got you've got for one thing you've got side effects if you're taken two


we can have a rebuttal mistrial may please the court i'm bill severino on behalf of that star you're struggling with mr pattens arguments because the problem in this case


of the of each block by required begin there are i mean if you look at all of the embodiments there are connections at each end if there weren't you would not be able to connect to the next block in a reading that didn't require within the block within the


mere design choice out of the whole comes consequence was a nice phrase had a nice ring to it but i often wondered whether that was legitimate or not well i have the board fortunately did


here and that's why we didn't talk about it i'm not allowed to but i want to put up a thing very interesting about this terms of use that supposedly formed the basis for his free file an investigation if you look at the two documents the one that


in the situation because petitioners in this case have looked up the overall sales quantities they've looked at the prices and they've looked at individual line items specifications can include up to thirty to one


five the e sat same number a more than two thousand tons down to the pound of hot rolled steel going out why isn't that


not how just changing that's the original claim we've come back and we've modified it but it still materially narrows the reissue claim still materially narrows the surrender subject matter because they specify how the selection is


the court when it is in part three of the opinion when the court considers whether or not the surely narrowing step is meant here it does at least consider the prior art and i think that isn't that is why we were looking at reading in our view


and it's a paragraph that is two paragraphs above the roman numeral to begin the applicants argue that narrowing is material where the additional claim with limitations quote render an otherwise invalid claim valid close quote whether or not the


to find otherwise would essentially cause other patent they would just limit the examples because what you're doing is you're giving other people ideas as had to steal your patent but just including an example in a


before the appellant has not demonstrated why the claim construction should be changed or why some different construction should affect the judgment in this case


and what this court did in v m c and its progeny was to adopt the well known and well established doctrine under supreme court law that federal statutes governing liability are set forth against the backdrop of vicarious


morning your honor is dirk thomas on behalf of the real time data and the inventors of the patent and student this case and may have seized the court we have to start out your honour's we have a copy of claim twenty two of the six five one patent that i've


there's a couple of instances in the record at that time too when the words unemployed bill are not able to hold a job or something came up that's clearly the evidence upon which everybody is talking about light so i guess are you


saying that that evidence on its face isn't strong enough to establish entitlement to the benefit and that's why that's something i don't when was that decided or where was that decided that's what it was


plain language and reporting their questions and cite only that testimony to support the decision michelle has made admission when previously immediately preceding questions and she would indicate that it's not


though it's an increase in to whether the patented product in the infringing product new would have an exchange out one to one and so in the unison case what happened that case ironically enough was about the golden brown color


except in the context of turning speakers cost but since attorneys fees usually exceed the amount of cost at issue in this type of setting i don't if anything the showing should be more difficult to be a prevailing party as


invention where in the primer they are going to use for the amplification staff is field specific so if you use a primer that is specific to for example the y chromosome and therefore specific to the


you look at anderson which mentions the biodegradable composition anderson says that the composition can include cmos static agents nearby teaches a team of static agents and it teaches that the benefit of


say that anderson teaches a biopsy i mean anderson does not teach a dozen anderson does not teaching a method for marking biopsies anderson mentions that he uses a tumour core localization


zooming in the military can command well i think we get back to how the national guard technicians act and i'm not to sixty eight to find this position and specifically


this case is about surrender abbott purposefully removed crystal be after h j p one nine nine in awe of its applications file based on the j p one nine nine and it did define


with joint inventor ship and so when you have you start with joint inventor ship you start with joint ownership is really about the situation where one of the owners brought a suit and the problem was the other owner had never


for the nervous condition that he put his application then under this court's precedents under the veterans courts precedence in the cases that mr williams sites such as miers and several other cases then the pending claims doctrine would apply in that


neither party thought of that question and i'm sorry that wasn't raised before the board neither of us thought of that in our briefs and we don't have that included in our record the primary manson's were overcome and the playing twenty


itself regarding told working conditions and in the ministry of judge focused almost exclusively no pages one through six on the issue of what of whether the case was meritorious as opposed to whether there were told the working conditions so


coupons or the retaliation claim he was the person that made the final determination so when a step further determined that it wasn't relevant because the time does not stand but also went the next step and said


of the job he didn't like them a most who resigned the new year and it was not able the allegation was that he was not able given the short amount of time do you think the commute the fact that it was a night shift at walter reed to gain either public


investor at least it's doesn't it seem to you that the board was at least within the range of reasonableness because we have to find that the board acted arbitrarily to preciously like a bunch of idiots


meeting those server was ever missing that's correct so in point of fact mr simmons was right that it wasn't a server missing it's just a mix up on the serial he actually was


for the two twenty eight i think that is more supported to be capable of infringement in looking at some of the cases that have functional limitations as well as


controlling certain functions


field at the time that alpha three domain of the protein corresponded to the x on four of the gene and so therefore we did know where a while and we knew it within three hundred base pairs as i mentioned


was never in the license agreement and consequently it doesn't apply to my client i think that mr quigley may wish to address that apologize for not answering the question but i think i could brief


allowed to find otherwise it is but am i correct that you're abandoning your earlier argument made in your brief here i don't want to throw it in the towel but i don't want to waste this court's time trying to overturn or consider history cases which


this side and that's on appeal right now we had no opportunity in the context of this motion even to deal with that issue when when we were before the board and but it was brought up in another motion and in that other motion there was a


person reported net fishing income from that one commodity on schedule c would you have a quarrel with the calculation of net


there is insufficient commercial activity in the context of this case in the absence of a license agreement having been signed by one of the accused and obviously you disagree with that but you want


margin you need to make on that is so somebody who's involved in a financial transaction is much higher in the chain of events then the person whose job it is simply take the product off the shelf and deliver


a disability what she talked about were she didn't provide any sort of parameters or any sort of examples of how long she was having the issues that she


that it's theoretically possible and in some rare cases it doesn't fact happen to persons granted withholding are removed to rd countries but that doesn't obviate the fact that the whole purpose of the withholding only


difference because the statute also applies to those unlike your clients who aren't illegal reentry but instead are those who are applying for withhold the st time around and don't have reinstated orders isn't that exactly why some sections two and three are


they come out of the bank they have the bag they jump in the car there's a car chase you lose them but doesn't you see them jumping and they get into a into a building and run into a building even though you don't know who that person is is your belief that


would have disappeared i mean yeah there were there was a theory that there he was his testimony at trial was that he didn't know he was so d high at the time that he broke into the house that he didn't know how many pills he was going to take


court had and the court has to tread lightly we don't want to get into why sometimes that the jurors voting feels the way they do but i think with able in some of these other cases what that what that the value judgment is it's better to leave it potentially


mitigated the loss of the future then it occurred i have been hearing your honor but she's denied the right to an inquiring hearing so in effect this court would be rewarding the sheriff's office i used


contract the entirety of home depot's overriding obligation not to rebuild or build it stadiums it was who's reading requires you to rewrite multiple phone of this contract not only do we have


and then open the shop and that was clearly a plot to shop with a front for the ongoing drug business he had to barbers who ended up they weren't even working there by the time it was arrested and ongoing drug dealing and then the boy that was


ruling so long as the amended motion was filed within the two your statute of limitations that you have for such motions under florida law and spirit if you read spirit very carefully spirit didn't really upset that rule it cited that rule


a pregnant workers don't get the same benefit but the record already reflects that that reason is completely insufficient both because they have no reason to provide and because in fact her direct supervisor said he was perfectly happy to


that doesn't make sense suppose i said nobody will get it created jobs if you can't do the job you're in you can't work for us i think that would that


occupational injuries not to pregnant workers but what's the difference if it automatically establishes that if you can get it immediately at the pretexting age by just presenting the reason


about failure to separate that's not my question and certainly if we have these certainly if you had a case you would not put it in a footnote jones be diamond th circuit should be a i put by put cases in footnotes when i do it string


mr stevens you've got your time for rebuttal thank you judge jordan just just briefly i think i think it's telling that you know from judge sort of hypothetical that the government concedes that the negligence


somebody to go and obtain a passport and they are telling the island go get a passport and as soon as you get the passport we're sending you away and that's the purpose of an order was a good vision it's not and another document and and the section one


hesitated and he couldn't find a tank up on his belt and so he released them and so they're grabbing him from behind as well as ultimately placing the handcuffs on mr fuller those were the only uses of force by officer white and i think based on


entirely on the fact that the police officer did not specifically put hamilton in peril he didn't throw her in the pool you know he came along when somebody is doing c p r she appeared to be rallying i guess is


reasonable suspicion analysis and then this might be quibbling but i don't think the magistrate judge found that mr hardy was in in fact being a base of with his responses i believe the magistrate judge found that the officer


destructed to assume that she could but some people with bipolar disorder function very well and are able to hold down jobs for many many years because they're taking the medication as as prescribed in this case it's


any later harm the fell mr cooper might have befall on him right well i think that he would have hired a lawyer or but he did hire a lawyer but that's how he got here i mean i think the reasonable


very quickly i'll just say that is normally what occurs and if you'll read even the opinion cited to by the government in support of their position the person who would you to k to the application the person who conducted the interview the person who filled out the form there almost always brought to


text does not include any such limitation it doesn't say whoever or knowingly provides or obtains labor of a person except for immigration detainees


choice he's using the medley case to try to set because you see the circuits and he wants to preserve that oh i don't want to write yeah it's not but i just i don't see i don't see what what real difference it makes and


misunderstood this is issue sort of a blanket exception without kata finding specifically they certainly do with respect to licensing but did they do that with respect to


to do other than look at these two packages yes your honor and you're right there is no bright line task for try to dress in french when it's a balancing of factors and it's not a it's not a tally up how many factors are on this side of the chart how many factors on this


purchase things you mix together before you actually i can't recall seeing that in any is there any evidence in this record about non and he's economy the v shape we know your mix things up again no your


either knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known about infringement that's when the clock should begin and we would have to adopt the th in the th circuit standards in order to accept your argument i


post patrol in addition to the th circuit the th circuit and stanley maintain the separate accrual rule for ownership claims we now have four district courts in this circuit including this case that have also maintained the distinction post


it harmonizes rule forty one a and rule forty one d and three you know voids creating a big loophole in rule forty one's who are purpose of deterring forum shopping with respect to the text


have to pay if that's not a possibility then in a case like this there will never be any relief for a party like my client who was subject to all the fees and costs of having to deal with the st action


me why the named plaintiff would have standing there some concrete injuries sustained that's traceable to the misconduct and redressal by a court well i


if a person wants to hire a state legislator and i guarantee you then in all the states with part time legislators they have consulting contracts is the line that they can't meet with any government agencies is the line that there has to be


initial screening and testing well i we believe that that does not mandate hiv screening or testing specially under these circumstances it


far his as far as pm are he's doing better things like that so if you could address those two points yes and the st point i have a difference between subjective complaints of pain and evidence of functional


considering the video after the fact of its final decision because it had had the video previously just failed to look at it so they acknowledged that mistake and corrected it harvard's position was in is that that is not open the door for mr come on to


the report from dr erb a which purported to respond to the or and criticized the peer reviews on appeal at harvard relied on i don't believe you based any argument upon it but


goldsmith revenue officer morris saying that we don't care what they spend their money on it's not up to the i r s to tell taxpayers what they spend their money on whether that whether it whether their expenses prevent the acceptance of it of an oh i see that that's a different


a in this case the bankruptcy court correctly lamented that a an all or nothing approach to the partial discharge question leads to absurd results so if i can use my own extreme


some courts have said yes and some courts have had said no in the tourist case that help me a bit well but the circuit so i'm asking you whether or not if there is a breach but no financial harm incurred


compensable form of injury and damage is what's different in those cases you don't know whether you're going to be struck with a disease but you have the risk of it i will tell you need to protect against it because you don't know


acre was a rare or threaten or endangered what that qualify under the statute under the statute in the regulations it should qualify the goal of the statute is to


that if only a small portion of the property is visible to the public the public benefit may be insufficient qualify for that and the tax court based on the evidence before it especially the fact that the river banks in the


fact the government's own internal expert rendered an opinion that the highest and best use of this twenty seven dollars hole golf course would be to develop the nine holes on the bluff overlooking the river and he came up with a nice value for the property even for that time


the heat of a sufficient legal provocation and even from the opinion this priem court noted that air manya statement quote he admitted that he intentionally fired the shot but stated he did not intend to kill either jenkins or


and so it is really just a restriction requiring consent for that type of calls before they're accomplished maybe we should also think about the case this way i mean what separates conquest or mr


federal constitutional right to access township board meetings as a district court concluded with respect to the free speech claim if that right exists it is not clearly established and finally as a relates to the cross appeal our position is twofold


occurred the injury occurs when a reasonable person with think i need to investigate this i cannot sit around and wait so would it be the first week would it be the second week it likely your honor would be to the point where you think this isn't going away this is


the deal provide advice to the client about what how that testimony is like that come off and what the client's consequences might be particularly in federal proceedings where you can actually enhance your said substantially if the judge decides that you were


overriding theme that he was he didn't want to present any evidence on the mitigator he didn't he didn't want to create some additional aggravators about the obvious k through the medication cases is that a fair fair reading of the record yes it


shop when you're defending a case it's not unreasonable to conclude that the doctor that you've that that state funds are paid for you to retain your request has determined that this the diagnosis he provided substance


district court does after pursuing that analogy instead and even if i didn't use the mcdonnell douglas format i'd reach the same conclusion correctly say for you to suggest that that was an error of law first analytically


yes there were three and then that's the other point that those exhibits will show you there were three individuals three four a glorious who had come up to the eighteen months post employment and whose stock was subject to being called three look


credible consistent and unimpeached is somehow discredited but the district court doesn't say that it did that it's the district court simply said i'm not going to look at mr


dropped the bag and rang there's only one staircase that leads to the third floor and that's the rear staircase the problem is you cannot see the rear stake staircase and you don't even know it's there when you


opportunity to rebut ray's declaration but she's talking about ray's trial testimony because his trial testimony was based soley on the declaration if you look at the trial testimony in the civil case those pictures were not


brought up they did not they did not affect earlier but him they did not impeach him and that was the whole point of her tenor in talking about the pictures i don't believe the district court ignored the pictures as a matter of fact as the applicant pointed out those


and again those dates are important the government pointed out in their case in chief that mr feldman emitted that he produced child pornography he made it to taking pictures of his granddaughter and taking pictures of


questions that the defendant asked during the course of this hearing before he ultimately pled guilty were there any prior convictions of this individual had he been up this road before i've forgotten


well i think i can't stand here and say that there wouldn't be coverage i think a claim i think the claim that you're describing would trigger the analysis by gotham as to whether mick shane


those that govern standard carriers and as this allows them to insure the risks that standard carriers cannot or will not insure gotham is approved by the nebraska department


litigation it has an effect on him he found out that hey the crimes that i was convicted of may not actually be cardinals booker names the equitable tolling as judge kelly mentions that could also


was disgusted by the supreme court in a case called american society of mechanical engineers versus high level and that first of all the d p a does not specifically address vicarious liability at all it's not in statute the united states supreme court has not applied


seven a and the other sides argue argument and responses while the city can only act through its its agents and the agent we clearly played that the agents knowingly accessed it for an improper purpose what's your


also involves damages a claim for damages as well as injunctive relief that arose here in the federal district court of the district of nebraska this case was assigned to judge lori smith camp and she presided at all phases of the pretrial and trial


that defense is requesting it would produce illogical results because that would mean that no plaintiff could ever obtain damages post a temporary restraining order the plaintiff would be left to decide whether or not to seek a t r o or to seek seek


not a material issue of fact that sheriff accessed ms hegland driver's license information without a permissible purpose it's clear from many decisions in this court that under qualified immunity the


not much i mean the fact is that the district court hears all the witnesses sees all the witnesses on the ground of them found them credible i guess that i have found i think you know he made a point of saying witness by witness who was credible


the misrepresentation or omission requirement of the sluice


part a political question but i think that the procedural due process factors laid out by matthews in fact anticipate this kind of balancing and it's a flexible standard in order for the law to apply an equitable approach here some some


that's not a vulture sale so there was two really separate things judge and i think that the government conflated those well in its presentation but there are really two separate things to give you my person


this bank and without doubt the situation of the bank worsened fairly quickly that that that's really just not in dispute but whether that's the strategy that was chosen whether that was the market whether that was


with by the u s d a is exhibit b but it's not marked as exhibit b it's interesting because if the court looks at student if the court looks at exhibit a that baseline says was marked as exhibit a that's on


i believe it's a direct evidence of tension between former employees and employers i do not believe there's any evidence that it's the that it's evidence of improper retaliatory


going back historically there was an offense common law offense from england called in a fray and that was carried over to the united states and that was an offense which prohibited carrying a gun in a manner that was


purpose reaches beyond felons who have proven themselves violent congress sought to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society in this case adams


enforcement officer now the government concedes that illinois burglary is not in our fans i think the government is correct in that assertion i just want to point the court to one recent case decided in september of two thousand and seventeen


on the purchase price for the relevant shares is nine million two hundred and eighty thousand two hundred thirty five the purchase determined in according to paragraph nine of the redemption agreement so it was paid in accordance with the two thousand and eleven redemption agreement


whether it was argued to the district court in response to the motion for summary judgment we argued the issue of prior breach i don't recall that we specifically label that as a quote affirmative defense but we certainly said


claim is simply a set off you owe us they say more than we owe you and therefore they want us to pay millions and we want them to pay hundreds of thousands of


at the warrant the warrant was deficient in probable cause for a few reasons to get into but looking at the warrant that warrant was oversold i mean it was a pretty big sales job of the thirty two page affidavit looking at the


ok well thank your honour's well we wish you all the best with your surgery thank you and thanks for coming in at a time mr ruff i think we understand your argument we appreciate it and i and i


between not the funeral goers and westboro but the big group about how being the pep rally and westboro in every letter and they poured over the letters to law enforcement


too small of an area just like the expert testimony from mr david saber highlighted it would make it makes it more difficult for law enforcement to quickly respond to whatever situations may arise and what the evidence show is to the frequency of the need


sounds like to me like it may not necessarily be content neutral and i guess the distinction we're not saying that those or anyone that's pro funeral is not covered we're saying that if they're engaged in


sole example dreamin of his own student could constitute protected activity for which the defendants obviously should have known that they were treading on his rights in the absence of that


he pled guilty of the trial court level to robbery and during the course of those pleading during the course of his plea in the state court the prosecutor stated that they had d n a evidence that would


the pretrial through officer but how do you get around with you know the supreme court has told us that the sentencing judge can consider all the circumstances to consider anything


said i couldn't find any directives from pretrial services information placed into a pretrial services report to use during recent person sentence but since then the government has shown to me what's called


in the chapel at their force academy and the court there said there's nothing about your exercise of religion that's implicated because you haven't said your religion requires you to publicly voice your dissent to same sex marriages suppose


the previous panel was aware of that hearing and also whether that hearing dealt with the suspensions exclusion orders both thank you mr chief judge actually to


has been law for at least forty years and they they just simply violated with regard to filing their


statements that criticize the judge but i don't mean you support i'm speaking from the perspective of the jury if that's what i was looking i don't really want you to testify but tell me tell me what support you have in the


can you point us to any circuit cases or cases since vance that that give us some data points about what sort of recommending authority is fish and under again and what isn't because recommend is


the other case interpret it i believe that that does state that that would be enough but specifically here where there's in addition to that the overlay of the physical conduct or the physical contact case upper case says that the most


their vocational expert from u d c miss fall who on her so second evaluation of six five fourteen said that there were only two said terry jobs out there that he might be able to perform


is that neither first marriage nor any of my clients were part of that litigation and were subject to that order so first marriage free and clear of that water so the essence to my clients for you clear that were there was


not supposed to do that you have to sign or hire rug level on admission because we have to consider revenue that's the essence of medicare fraud we're not talking about free hot dogs and gift cards it's only fraud i would think


there were also some instances where she said it you adjusted minutes of we face time with a patient we didn't actually spend those minutes in so up coding is not just something where we can infer in a light most favorable to the


itself and all that it becomes clear that is at least of dispute the existence of the motion for summary judgment is not a trial or a bench trial or jury trial this is the question the court was supposed to take evidence i've seen the light most favorable to the nonmoving party which of


and to the extent that there are advantages that she wishes she had from from us law it's she just doesn't have access to them in the same way that if she had gone to work for an entity that has a foreign entity that has no connection to any u s anstey there


that somebody thought that might be the case but couldn't prove it i mean it didn't come out of thin air the that they meant we can't prove that it's not self


they review tapes of what time periods exactly we don't know any of that and there's also no tapes of mr richardson harming himself or fabricating that so if there's to some there's any inference to be drawn from a lack of tapes it should


rehabilitation correction has taken and these cases it's a matter of fact your honor i don't i don't think anybody fears that ohio is trying to do botched executions no one


provide for any additional rent to them if the store remains one hundred fifty one thousand square feet or food is double that well we talked a little bit a moment ago about the motivation of the parties are about


may couldn't you just i wonder whether it's ethical to call up somebody who's a friend of yours and say somebody that works for you saw a traffic accident i was him can you get him not to testify you


the court in three different locations indicated that there was no agreement between the parties as to any possible square footage is


don't don't have much to do with trooper baker he did not make the stop of the vehicle he did not participate in any part of weighing the vehicle but i will let the tail end of mr englishes time up here he


likely to be the cause of death is not the same thing as beyond a reasonable doubt more likely to be the cause of death especially when combined with repeated statements by the medical examiners the medical examiner that he did not know which was the cause of death is not enough iams


this is that case this is the case in which the jury what they received basically told them it was more likely that's that's the furthest you can get with more consistent and after the furthest they could get there's still no way that a rational jury's reasonable doubt could have been could have been surmounted


appear here because the subpoena is being fought in california or tennessee or wherever in the cases another state or the defendant shows up and says i moved to quash the subpoena and the defendant doesn't offer to defend especially


said you know we believe the dog is unlicensed in we need to go season nobody ever went to see if the dogs are maddest saying or harassing people they don't need a war if they're actively menacing and harassing people yes and the officer


are you


defense and there was testimony in the case agents agreed that there is a valid reason to have more than one copy of a patient file because medicare ok jli will request


this court case in the tower where the court said for guideline purposes if the scheme is still going on in the laws there is black letter law that it once a conspiracy is under way it is presumed


finished searching the car and so they let mr hunt go for the sake of the covert nature of the ongoing and narcotics investigation and because it would have been unreasonable the officers even testified they were aware of court rulings can't just hold people the way for a dog so they let him go on september


or well that's probably true but i don't perceive this to be a punitive analysis indeed look at the criteria the judge used and again harmless is the


ben at the same time she actually issued her opinion there would still be two months in that entire process we had even set a trial date yet so that in my view would not have to lie or delayed the trial


michigan law or if it's if it's questionable then i guess we think that the court in this case found that it was enough no i have no case that doesn't kind of it's enough that i'm left


it's not clear but i'm trying to see where the case that's like our case our case right and their admission in court said it was enough so we got the case our case which says it's enough and a lot of cases which don't say either way then under it


at the knowingly part the mens rea or basically the thought process that he had this i think goes to he total total disregard


through but somebody just mistakenly didn't pull the piece of papers from one binder and put it in another and of course thank you


rebuttal that's right and there are only two issues that have been raised on this appeal is basically one of them from the beginning of the case and one that the end of the case what i'd like to do is address


she was listed on the police report as working for mr nelson as a prostitute i'm sorry mr allen as a prostitute so the suggestion that nothing would have happened if they hadn't seen these pictures i think is just there's no basis for that this


the fact that that four level enhanced mint is that's not telling me what they should be able to do what what we i shouldn't be able to start again from scratch what do you think the government is going to ask them to do that you want to remain


so be submitted make all the next case


gone in this case the first mortgage which they executed upon after taking the property back was gone at the time they executed under it and that was forgiven by operational law


no more collateral to resort to and the debt there's really only one debt even though there are two mortgages correct because they were cross collateralized which is why the presumption doesn't make sense they advocate a


once the association has standing it is in titles to go out and advocate as exactly as happened in in cleveland double a c p against parma where the standing was established but by the time it got to this


only not a difference in how it's calculated and isn't that one the the grothman of the is to whether this the budget is calculated based on the thirteen eighty eight and


that the point in transferring the assets was to give the employees a head start in the new pension plan as judge that is but it doesn't give them a headstart unless it's counted well and it is counted until such time


both so here you're saying that tort of not doing more than what the federal regulations require is a violation of the michigan safe drinking water act right


what he knew he was in the system as the prosecutor said he knew what he was facing for stealing a car he didn't want to be on the


need a confession in light of what the word shallow well and that's that's why i'm pushing back a little bit here you're using the word neon is using the word need need is not what we're looking at ok the question is did it a fact that and so if


and my view was that that reasonable possibility is enough to have given counsel the obligation in terms of reasonable performance to raise the issue and it also increases the likelihood that the request would have been granted even if you reject


judge's decision on pages three and poor where she outlines this was not just a single case on the other hand with respect to souter's she actually did discipline him it just was not the spain type of


holly case where justice rinehart felt that the summary judgment was appropriate probably granted in favor of the defendants because the plaintiff in that case failed to show any evidence of a connection between


that apply to each of the individual claims and then once you find out what the with the settlement value would have been then you deduct the settlement amount which speculative here is that these experts absolutely did not do that they did not


should proceed as a class action the issue before this court is whether the district court of used its discretion in denying class certification in a case where the class members


back to my point on an individual basis what are they going to do are they going to cross examine people and say well didn't you know this didn't you know this this you know this didn't you get this ahead and at the end of the day for every single one of these individual millions of trials that they're


affirms that opinion i believe very strongly that it will create a conflict in the circuit between this case and hankies because i think it's absolutely clear that he control this case will have the most wide ranging in fact however on civil rights but against the


o that became mediately moot there is no appeal from a t r o the the defendant never had a chance to challenge it on appeal this court held that that was that do not negate the plaintiff's prevailing party status i would


demonstrated what the court that is the informal formal private public that those issues are wrong and therefore the there's only person preservation the status quo what they


confess despite the fact that he was he was presented with the minimal physical evidence that they had against i think he's good there was no


oh i'm sorry it is in a volume two of the four


the complaint an intervention could reach the priority issue and determine that under the circumstances that we have priority then we would need to go in but the second way you could affirm would be


deciding that if the pitcher was moving then he wasn't unconscious they found that actions as common as effectively constituting


presented them with the factual question they had to answer and in fact lead them away from it we were relevant considerations well what is the jury was instructed that the middle


speaking for myself i'd actually like to ask you three questions with regard to i don't need further argument on the second one but if your opponent raises an interesting question is it your position that a no on party assuming we


then as a party to challenge the injunction all those things do make sense to me and if we didn't have the article three magistrates consent problem i would not be troubled in the least but now we're saying to mr hyde well you have a perfect opportunity to


so the dynamics are exactly opposed to one another that the opposite ends of the same spectrum


adverse employment action is intended to be retaliatory is a question of fact that must be decided in light of the timing and surrounding circumstances in some cases the totality of the facts may form such a clear picture that district court would be justified in granting summary


ok i don't think we have any other questions thank you


the courts will impute and assign a legal location there's no need to do that here what we're doing here is not finding something that has to have some kind of legal location we're trying to decide whether this is something that would be intended to be covered under this policy and in fact because


she's there there's certainly no evidence there's no evidence in compliance with the statute there's no certification which is this is required and i take it that the reference to camp and i can't


to the evidence was attached along with an internal they had an internal instructions on how to use the product for people in japan and if they are not a plant and then they have instructions that came to the


terms of following the english language in the context that we understand the english language absolutely but in terms of the request itself when you distill it down to its essence and look at even really the court and i


cause which you don't and i think that frankly that that from the extradition law that is the basis because of the nature of the distance with the one is travelling a different foreign you know different type of legal system per se but this court should not be in the position of saying


comedy must follow and it's unanimous you can't be waived you can't be modified it can't be changed as long as there is a provision i'm satisfied that acts as a type of custody and i assume with the state is


of the other things the only authority i've seen from that is again and that's an opinion from the baptists i cited to apparently there's a fifth circuit opinion that approves that procedure which cited instance and that's called cox cox and


geisha now by affirming the bankruptcy court on all of us fall aspects of its ruling i certainly think bankruptcy court did not err in regards to the jamison agreement that is an operative document and i would


consider your view of where the district court where are your honor i'm not so sure that i was this is an issue that should be reviewed de novo in any way and frankly don't think it makes any difference based on this


as well and with respect to those comments in particular they're not necessarily probative of age discrimination in this court has found that similar comments were merely colloquialisms that were unrelated to age such


not a part of this court's opinion i reckon i really recognize that but nevertheless it was certainly a key issue because that's what they moved to dismiss our judge work rejected the argument came up here and this


use of any person i think it has a very limited view one must focus upon the phrase failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this act that phrase just begs the question of what


point out that the complaint as to the investigation under hawaii revised statutes twenty yes to two point five i thought had been abandoned that did not seem to be an issue and i made the appeal brief and i


and it did result in problems and did result in increased congestion and of course that's an active parking lot with driving and children and it just is not a good idea to have distractions and that's why we believe the regulations which do not prohibit free speech


what plaintiffs allege speech was what quote alleged was protected consider these three things the parents if you take the whole menu of the trial and you take those two instructions i'm having a really hard time


insured had to be under the treatment of a physician for the condition causing the disability moreover the policy did not say that you merely had to be under the treatment of a physician for the injury it was


broker someone else's trucks and everyone in the industry works this way now alan french testified he's an employee for hanson vice president justified that today here in ninety four hansen


primarily because of walker's lack of legal ability to enter into the contract it would be an illegal contract secondly as we discussed in our papers in our answering


offense exceptional so for poor mrs power there he cannot be extradited even though she was an unfortunate side victim of the home invasion collateral


the representation agreement and the principles of federalism reflected in the federal arbitration act under california law there were representation in violation of the rules of professional conduct is unlawful and


guard may be proposed to suspend they are required to spin that information on to the proper authorities at the air force to get their take on it before they take any further actions like firing the person in this particular case they didn't even fill


situations what mr lal is arguing is you have to look at the circumstances he tried to get investors he tried to do more mining he had me named mr leslie as one of the potential investors he named


that should be removed but not all of it and some of mr ballinger is residential use may or may not be incidental to mining operations he says in his deposition that mining goes on all year and they're claiming that it


claims although i really am not as concerned about some of the counter claims some of the counter claims clearly do not stay to claim it's an interesting theory to be a lamb went to congress to increase its powers but it's certainly not a cause


allowed to seize debtors property and others who are not then you've got them then you're not creating are also really situated in your creditors equally in the bankruptcy code it's clear the