business downtown i see sort of groups of people who look like each other you know we're not just talking about like cultural cross sections but generation all i even like while i was out knocking on doors i heard so


development and so how all the pieces fit together do you see a role for folks outside of that as well in the city council or do you see it more as an operational kind of off job i think operations are really important and one thing that's key there is


to talk about food policy and specifically burlington had set a goal for itself of producing ten percent of its food within the city what do you think burlington burning into its current food policy to the extent that it has one and then also


that the guard supplies to the area and i think that's critical we want to keep those jobs all three members of the vermont delegation fought to bring the thirty five's to


neighbor is right on the other side of north avenue the issues are close to both me and my neighbor so i feel like that collaboration needs to happen i'm really passionate about it


electricity was in the last and last century i would love to see you know a part of the town governments working together towards bringing something like that and where we can expand the sort of infrastructure base


anticipate that the high flyer whatever you want to call provision will cause the eighty units per year to be on a ten year rolling average i'd say to be exceeded by much if any at all well no i mean the first part


that we need to fund this overall project this overall project in the biggest piece of it is acquisition of the building but it also included some of our moving costs the cost to rehab the space we're using in burlington


has thought that this acquisition is worth it one other point is that i believe we have another i forget that this is i don't know somewhere between forty and sixty thousand budgeted for next fiscal year to go and


what's happening at each town and actually at each grade level and we monitor that a lot as jean said that's really one of the key parts of the work that we do during the budgeting process both for in terms of you know the revenue that we're going to get but


do you have that same into suppression and if so have you have you had instances where it has been that strongly polarizing where you had to try and make sure


in having a group a touchstone group that i can work with as i develop this process that may exceed the availability of the full select board and may include some of the key


no one was injured by a stray bullet and you know reared its head again and then we knew we knew that there needs to be some sort of public engagement on this but it hasn't you know got


caused by gentrification before it's too late and we have to be responsible for our public commons like them or a lot of tory i'm making sure that the infrastructure we inherit is treasured and maintained and not lost to negligence or sold


vibrant active use of our community gardening network and brenton does continue to have an amazing community garden network we also acknowledge that that doesn't mean that everyone gets served and everyone is reached that way there is a new americans effort or should see a garden effort with new


skies right now as far as military jets are concerned and the low noise level that they keep claiming is not it's actually going to be quieter an f sixteen that and a lot of areas of the state so yeah again vote no on question


like it seems like a big part of this is again this pretty complicated issue very facts and whether this is a referendum on the guard or referendum on the f thirty five you know


diligently on and if we prevail with all the legal challenges and some some of which those legal challenges don't affect our ability to go out to bid we expect to be bidding in the spring


conservation committee we met weatherley on we could with all their suggested comments we read cans were by staff no it's we're we're fine with the proposed conditions we don't have any issues the


approved once they get their final plans approved then they can you know they can engage in construction in keeping with the allocation schedule they got for the building out of the well in units so


that to a three story over podium structure and then we build a little bit as we get closer that campbell section group thank you so the eighteen units you're not going to come back in the future is when we had originally submitted this we had said approximately three hundred twenty


always said in order to achieve the underlying density we have to go vertical it's better better land use honestly to go vertical and actually during the masterplan phase you know the board pushed us to say well how are you going to realize the zoning


depression and somatoform disorder in this case there were many different medical opinions that supported her disability claim and the list i won't repeat it for you here but it's about ten


how the problems that are better patient was having and so she's the only person in this file that actually saw and treated crows over a extended period of time and so was familiar with the


a fully rejected everything she had to say and we're look it's interests when you're looking at a case that's been going on for nine years you can you know that time it was i think it's time the decision was only seven or six years but still is


outcomes but we do recognize that this is a legitimate concern here but we do think that that underscores the importance of ensuring that the law and beg to to prevent as best as possible taking advantage of laws


that it promotes and encourages policies that create jobs for a local economies throughout montana this is its priority this is its purpose the purpose primary purpose it matter what it actually is i mean


with it i dish in obligations and burdens finding a treasurer which has become difficult in montana people are afraid to become them because because you can be sued but the treasurer also available get it to follow the money


the relief that they were requesting in the trial court was not and would not have given him any actual relief in the trial court what the new scope of the injunction that they sought was that in any future confinement of mr granting


it's around it's around eighty thousand dollars but wait a minute i'm going to forgive me but on the third component which is what i'm talking about to generate the fee bill i think it's forty one thousand and that was doubled well that's a forty forty one thousand dollar difference and then


and they were very strong there was some very strong language in those evaluations that showed that and one of the psychologist saying this was the most depressed person i think i've ever seen it was very powerful language in


if that were the case there would rarely be qualified it would never be qualified immunity granted in any case counsel's acknowledge that there is no ninth circuit precedent that governs the facts here we've heard a tenth circuit case the sixth


what you're saying right now i'm more confused are we talking about are you talking about once they chose to reopen yes ok pick up there because that's a very helpful because the judge indicated that there was some trouble with the chain of custody and that government reopened and did what


it is understood by both the employer and the employee that none of that money is overtime money it's all straight time wages because it's a mischaracterization case


point that your client had essentially conceded there was filth a liability but you state that the real issue is a correct amount of damages if any and is i am i mistaken well you're mistaken to the extent that we are still


let's accept that so


procedures why couldn't the government just deem them filed and move on from there and we wouldn't be in the ninth circuit months years beyond when his complaint was could you do that well first of all that is not a certainty that we wouldn't


the testimony which is that pages eight hundred sixty eight and eight hundred sixty nine of the excerpts of record mr lang says that of loudest love fill out the checks there was no testimony that


five points the court i don't host supreme court then dismissed that argument first because it wasn't because they relied on a bright line rule and secondly because


genetic threats which a service shouldn't just didn't address at all in the two thousand and fourteen finding which is in contrast with what it did in two thousand and ten and then on the nearer term threats the threats posed


that our partners in this or not only the state others have to be other state agencies the u s fish and wildlife service it's also n g o s and most importantly it's private landowners you have heard today the


other two only on substantive theories that the court struck down the i r s notice invalidated it on the procedural theory and didn't reach the substantive claim and then it said those substantive claims were non


administrative rules on forestry mandate that there be a supervisor in a knowledgeable person present to work out this particular problem when there was an intractable issues that are tree cutter


or that they get really really good deal to make up some that way or they could have got it from kodiak when you allow them to do determination for convenience why don't we then stick to the contract i mean maybe that was a bad decision on the


yeah but under the contract fourteen point four zero two throws out fifteen point five and everything else the only time you look to the rest of the contract is as to


by the government's own admission for at least one of them my friend says that damages is just there for emphasis but that simply can't be squared with the phrasing of that provision says including an order judgment awarding the money


contain certain areas that are designated by one others five point two and each of those has a consequence well let's talk about it and you you need to follow certain procedures if you're going to change that the force of the the


beneficiary and it also lists self as the nominee ok and then years later some assignment at least on the record for murders to a subsequent person the same as actually and that's recorded also right in what year two thousand and eleven


into this fence let's let's turn to back in new york mellon there you deal you don't dispute that you've seen the note in this case i do i haven't seen the note well it was produced it's in the record we have a certified copy in the record yes


put in a hard drive and then it gives you series of prompts as to what type of information you want off the phone and that's it and then you put the evidence and there was nothing scientific or technical about it it's in line with any number of other sort of


directly with the sort of problems that they're raising on appeal about celebrating the potential inconsistency to go to respond to my pundits point about the deletion that sarah


eleven they found that he was no longer working with counsel the v a is not bound by the v a s to terminations would you agree yes that is correct and also the objective findings that are made in the v


so material if the doctor saying well this person can't lift more than ten pounds and therefore can't go back to work sometimes those comments will be hidden in the treatment records and then the elders should discuss them but there's no requirement to be able to not forgiveness i agree with everything you just said you so so if i were


you know somebody has got to take some evidence well i think on the record before the court and there's also a dispute of how we interpret a narcotic is it limited to strictly opiates or is it limited to controlled substances and prescription


d policy if you will is both a life and disability policy if given that characterization does it matter what you call it no and it doesn't it's so long as it is


strikes me as the definition of unreasonable at the same time we have the second the second issue that there was a disconnect about about in this case that both edith elliott and paul letterman talked about and was seen in the claims committee no to that second question is


or memory problems or anything like that and then she came to her doctor later and said there were memory problems and then a few months later ninety percent better on the memory problems and then by the time the dr sanders report my old


argument there was as i understood it that even if a couple of wheelchairs were really sold to a legitimate purchasers that your client was not a


government law in every state across this country and the reason is this the public records law deals with public records which every party in this case admits these are these are records own used retained prepared by a government


constitutional provision could in fact be an exemption the problem is in this case where they have the burden of bringing a poem or injunction to prove there was a basis for denial of the records they have to prove will likely go to prevailing on the merits to get


but in the end after hearing five days of testimony about how the body system was actually working in the arbitrator correctly held that the buddy system had failed to fulfill the promise to ensure that nurses were affirmatively


whether the district court's conclusion that the arbitrators band of the buddy system didn't drop the essence from the settlement agreement and whether the arbitrators contrary finding was supported by the evidence that was before the arbitrator i


cases i would note also that in the phoenix case upon which multi character lies it emphasises again the need for deference to an arbitrator's remedies and in that case the court used the old possibility framework which has since been


carpenters re articulation of the standard there are some no way to say that the arbitrator did not look out and construe the party settlement agreement when he crafted his remedy ordering multi character to cease fire lading the agreement through the use of the


was sufficient probable cause relating to these crops


t please the court counsel bruce campbell on behalf of the opponent co seafoods with the court's permission i'd like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal just keep track it counts down thank you this case involves the question whether coast's oyster growing facility in


basis your on it we did that is of verifier is it at an excerpt of record for one we indicated as were indicating here that it rises and falls with the lanham act claims because the w c p a specifically


narrowly tailored explicitly just found that a power does not need to file suit within those three years it didn't address the other aspect of the title regulations which state well but let's look at the language of sixteen thirty five


gave an answer about the death penalty to eighty five did not she declined to do so we don't know about body language or anything else but that's that that was one of the things they were concerned about the obviously the prosecution of belmar that eighty


house may have an entirely different perspective man look at entirely different people as it indeed is going on right now with respect to our own court and it may be a different party as it was in this case so to some degree the role of the


some plus factor if you will think that they'll insure rights but that plus factor is is a different bitters when there's another one down the street at the judicial auction that is has the stamp of a judge on it so that's one of the ways in which


policy violation based on any other statutory or common law source that the plaintiffs identified they tried lopez but the court rejected counsel reasoned with respect i just said are compton case that you don't have


similar denials not coincidentally one of those other companies actually has a sustained fraud complaint against them with the similar allegations here a clear where they also represented that the man was strong there was no inventory buildup and it turns out that that was not the


is three three three murders a rape yeah and then within the murders of a murder of a what i would call a good samaritan well actually one of our claims here was that mr chisholm was not a good smell


ventures has no control over this just like if i send a message to you through facebook if your settings are such that you want to receive an e mail notification and you have control over this this is all going through facebook none of this is out


was at most a way to limit their ability to use their accounts in a way they wanted to they wanted to use power to access their accounts they wanted to have some kind of service to aggregate their social media and


on the basis of the facebook users violation of their terms of service so yes this is a case where facebook did have options but they instead chose to bring in that cause of action under the c f a and can spam despite the fact that the statute the congress was not


had his reasons but those reasons aren't discovered on the face of the record and we just should have noticed the docket there isn't any other evidence i think if it comes down to it i see a question on most just prosecution


total was a cost settled law at the time your client applied well there was there were board of immigration appeals decisions that were contra there was one in fact that was just taurus garcia which was just


him the tools in this case the tools that evidence that he needed with the jury questionnaires almost everything the prosecutor referred to in justifying the challenges from the jury questionnaires almost everything the defense


that are are not being used in their precise context in this case first of all prejudice prejudice was assessed in the state court of appeal opinion and a citation made to people v


in an international company and so to then transfer those assets and then you know claim that you know bank of montral you you can't recover we can't add sally or and that has to do well i mean now it sounds like you're


are taking in consideration a company that really would have no defense or chooses not to have a defense because one but they look good for a year right before they drop before they stopped they are talking correct yeah


reinstating her order before allowing her time to appeal no your honor and there's nothing in the irony or the regulations or case law that that supports the position that ice prematurely reinstated her order acted within within


her i mean she's got these young kids the last thing just on the issue of discretion i wanted to mention to the court just that obviously the general concept that when an agency has discretionary authority that it has to provide a clear reason


case of the minor it that because it was have to read that of application that and also because the minor was accompanied as opposed to unaccompanied what is your best argument that he should have a separate determination


maybe the court can find a way to read them consistently but the board didn't and so for example if one letter says the light was at the traffic accident was read another letter says the light was green literally but i don't think that's


you have a minute eighteen that you're on with tom i have left i would just like to address the impersonation statutes of those were brought up right at the end there in regards to the shack case in the military uniforms in those cases we have a government someone who


was a district court judge for longford before he was a court of appeal and i understand his reasoning and i take it that your responsibility venues to show us that he was correct that there is no prejudice been shown


regulations require affidavits or other evidence and the bird life and the evidence presented in this case fall in the category or other evidence it did to but i considered it as other evidence but the burden that the raft


me let me expand on that the un conflicted council weren't the driving council earlier in the case that was definitely a quire was they had the majority of the time they were the ones with the labor and more then after those those on


by the time the objectors come in because the money is now on the table that's right and i think that i think it is sir i think it helps my point which is to say that risk was resolved two years after they filed the case in this case they haven't had that risk for the law


prove are not the basis for the attorneys fees award and are not a basis for finding loss there's of course there's another reason that was not addressed by the district court which is the exclusion


many contexts we require some evidence to support an administrative bodies decision that combined with green holds and all and see that there is a protected bill liberty


december twenty first that happened before the additional ten days was imposed his argument as you know is that he at that point thought he'd already again this goes back to dribbling out the punishment that he when he met with the principal he didn't have notice that


there was a possibility that more discipline might be imposed because of the he had already served his punishment i understand that they have not cited to a single case that would require that he be given that additional notice


the very first self report included indication of the photo yes and in fact if you look at the record the there is testimony that he was informed of the photos at that meeting what list of course the first meeting the first indication coach said i don't want to hear about


case the court concluded it's unclear whether the the person was a government official or not on the court said that he was but he was actually arrested and held for a month and the court said the asylum


immigration judge only found it was one of those harms roast a level of persecution that was the harm to daniel and when they reported that instance single instance of persecution to the government the government responded and in fact and in fact you know the the austrian government is


automatically proceed to do so what happened here is the district court just said those are racially neutral reasons prosecutor gave several reasons and in the district


jury in this case said no that's not going be a problem if there was actually a problem and the prosecutor had a responsibility to actually inquire further and she didn't so for those reasons your honor we believe that the prosecutor just hasn't shown or we have shown i would


prison and that he had he was relying on sources that he had within the mexican mafia and within prison and so your honor the the fact that mr mason is given immunity and he's testifying on behalf of the government


in that case that you vacating the opinion after all the work that had been put in would deny the benefit of that analysis to future petitioners and that is something i do think is notable because of the fact that at the time the claiborne opinion was written and issued


closely and in our response we do addressed each of those pieces of evidence they all link work activity with pain and there's nothing to say that volunteer work or other activities in fact are things


not dismissed that case and as you pointed out if there was a dispute about the scope of that order and how it should be enforced and that is what should have been brought to the district court while the process was still proceeding and judge white could have rules and fashion an order as to how it


hundreds of thousands of pages of mortgages limited documents so let's see what did they come up with where's the smoking gun for scienter so first they say they say we knew they conclusory really allege we knew that the radical bunny notes were not


was an inadvertent decision which they have made crystal clear to your client why why would we why would we say no you're not telling the truth you really open that for the merits of two or one and you're not telling the truth that that was just a


decision at least says that it's reasonable so i think that the vast majority or all the other courts that have addressed this issue have weighed in on the government's side i think that should really answer the question whether or not it's a reasonable interpretation


i'm saying to the court that there would have been reasonable doubt one if you have the proffer of sibling evidence before the court too if that ninety nine percent thing is gone get that out of here i think that may have had a dramatic impact on a juror who is who actually


hospital plaintiffs including the california hospital association and i would like to reserve whatever time i don't use on my opening argumentative for rebuttal and i do not anticipate using a full twenty minutes off like at


then the state mentioned that in its response to your request for clarification so apart for our purposes you're asking us to in effect then this is my terminology to piggyback the eighty


the potential for the just learned that he had other bad acts i also think it's important to note that at this stage this is we're just in the martino stage so we haven't


defaulted he did not make a religious based that's an type of objection at trial he did not raise this claim on direct appeal and he did not raise this claim on state habeas young cannot use


that is a good question honor them in many cases they were not paying for housing they did have a guest house it was one or two apartments they called guest houses some of the people did live there and you're right they were paying the rent on that they were giving them some grocery money but a lot of these recruits who testified and there were


asking the import of what he's asking is that the court reconsider the summary judgment in light of this evidence that's the same thing that this court saw in the ross case where a late designator late provide a


after that you know after those after the audit and before the firing of up and what did those what those auto show i mean did that they say they fired them both for poor


it please the court this is a case of first impression in this circuit runners but it may or may not be a case of first impression for the nation one of the primary questions that we're going to be called upon to


write your own question the additional sentence that is correct the pattern structure that this court has created is i think perfect it almost identically mimics what the statute says that statute


seems to me or maybe that the instruction add on the government got is gearing further towards objective only but i'm not convinced by opposing counsel that we should make this a specific intent and on either pattern to me look pretty darn


martinez versus united states with we cited in our twenty eight j materials the supreme court said courts have for example developed mechanisms short of a full remained to determine whether a district court in fact would


shows the evidence is there they have not shown any violation of any emtala screen policy there are specific emtala screening policies that this hospital has specific policies that this hospital has doctor carlson was asked


more because the district court had ample discretion to determine that too wide of an analytical gap existed between the underlying data and dr


call and get it get it reduced down to eight dollars and thirty three cents which is only eight times more than the actual collection cost which is why i think it's important that we let that we look at the statute in here because it's it's the statute that authorizes


brought to their attention you've got the auction is calling and working this out certain oh sure but your brief in your brief indicates that this this discretion they're giving is not equally exercised and which which is always true discretion by definition then i carry on


fifty pound person with health problems he sees a guy every officer is commanding him to get on the ground other officers are taking control the rest of the scene officers know commands and to get on the ground he instead he reaches over the back of the sofa officer


on online course and then from there that's when they did a more broader social media review and found her husband's facebook page and the value of anything on her husband's facebook page is somehow evidence of her activities you know certainly is


before any transaction those are affirmative statements by the defendant through counsel that contradict the reliable evidence in the prison it's important that coupled with those those objections


responsibility and i would submit that the court i would ask the court to keep that in mind when it considers the preservation issue that we do have questions here where the same kind of objection that the defendant wanted to make about importation here


some sort of guidance that specifically addresses that that you just you can't you can't waste that the defendant the government want to put in an exception for ineffective assistance but the reality is it's always going to be there whether you put it in or not correct


one but two things that push in favor of affirming the fact that the way the guideline was applied was legally now we know from thankfully incorrect but the facts of the case show that


yes the final judgment not the memorandum order that the judgment is what control your right your honor exactly but at that point when the order was issued and if we had initially realized that there was


i case a case which judge ellison out of the southern district ruled in favor of the driller and said that you can't there is not enough evidence in the record and it is impossible for a reasonable juror to find that there is


of the incredible amount of facts that are true mitigation investigation presented an established by the way ultimately the prejudice that is the other


shot in the ankle in the process he loads his weapon and he's able to return fire so we have at least two robbers who are firing we have an employee that is firing they are able to make off with the nine weapons


intent to facilitate the offense and to facilitate escape and so one when we're talking about putting the gun against the back of mike's had that certainly helps


just don't move is there is or difference there one says don't move and the other one just says give me all your money in both situations to put the gun up to your neck would you have would the would the guidelines apply new that two


he said the local rules of this quarter or not i don't requirements and failure to follow them may result in pleadings or evidence being stricken from the summary judgment record the quotes


use where the dollar amount was more specifically provided which was not necessarily specifically provided in terms of damages in the petitions but as a court is aware is


firearms and further and of the drug tracking trafficking activity and those individuals who hire those security guards a law enforcement officers were also using those firearms as sort of the ends of the drug activity it's the


thank you ms watching how the next case of the day


well i don't think the prosecution minimized that fact and i don't want to minimize it either and the c c a recognized that he did not have any reports of bad behavior for the eighteen years that he was in prison


without invitation without warrant without circumstances then when she comes to the door she answers the door and you can tell that she's been asleep she says she's going to sleep it's she comes downstairs after several and opens the door and they explained there


issues if you read the expungement order and i think you'll see some motions that i have in their dressing s if you read the expungement order the defense would be defense less there would be no


indian chief on the t shirt that said right that's it i'm going to feel like they go to that home they see the boys up stairs walking around they're looking out the window they know the police are there


by the nomination and governance committee of this board to sit for interviews not only did sesar the use the interviews but as discovery bore out didn't even bother to tell its own candidates that they'd been invited in for


and adams in ten pages of briefing before the district court yet this was a completely ignored by the district court when it held that quote haynes does not clearly establish what distinguished what distinguishes


twenty one ninety seven or twenty two hundred and in there he specifically discusses the aggravating evidence of the state have provided he cites the c d c s recitation of the evidence and addition to citing other evidence that he noticed from the record


she had called before they had her address and other records so the telecommunications companies services and products never worked they never worked she had made a represent they had made a rep representation that they would would work


new allegation would have directed the address immediately to the nine eleven operator or is it also that it would have to directly be addressed immediately


sequence under the six minute response time that mr pitt im a reference to she could have been aided so it had nothing to do with the operational technology why she was all to me regrettably murdered there were the choices


injury possible that's not approximate call of if that were applicable to telecommunications as opposed to just property isn't there when we're talking about young i think i think the sanchez case stands for the


give the direction about the president's body on it is outside the record but i took the depositions and i could tell you that miss cooke at cole there before and i could tell you that the officers looked at prior


officer a hard time from start to finish i mean i watched the tape he's like and what if i say no in this and that so it is it's not escalating quite missing way is running around running away but the crime that he's actually being potentially charged with this is


any in a general and broad and global sense but the case law including a little v show which was just decided by this court three or four years ago it does or it directs us to look at the specific allegations and compare them to what's been publicly disclosed


physically those cert they don't it's through a window and when he was asked if they go into the cell jail the rich slack likewise testified that quote we check in mates every twenty five minutes as required by gun carrying rules for jailers that's at the record one fifty


help close quote that's at two thirty five to two thirty six and the record at two fifty nine about addressing the claim by counsel opposite that you are misstating the record in that the record is totally incomplete


join a rule that it would be chaos if these two rules were enjoying we would have concerts going on with nobody knows or common we would have people can put up whatever they wanted in the middle of our bill of art you would have a complete chaos so you can't do that i


of eight people who don't complete their audits by may thirtieth two thousand and eight which is a as a department wide sander why that doesn't result in a single discipline indeed there's no discipline ever until


cars arena it's it and discrimination and discipline it's necessary to marshal all that evidence of once and say whether it's meets the prima fashion case or it's casting doubt that performance is an issue if performance


contradicted she was the only hispanic so everybody by definition that's not me named cortez in there is is a comparative or outside of her protected class so there's no guessing involved the pattern declaration went through and tallied various


was in the government in pakistan have helped several government jobs and that he he has true brother in law in the military but the only thing that really substantially changed is the ten


you know the fact that he's been here that should come forward if he has become westernised my problem counsel is that the evidence that you presented it's hard to see how either


know buy ammunition but once they once the jury heard this expert testimony they were started given there was like the architect the way that they could convict the client the definitively didn't like because he was a bad person who was


area and it was found next to the key elements for destruct conspiracy which were all of the prescription drugs doc yes but no as i understand and you can correct me if i'm wrong those were being used not in that place in other words


plainly has difficulty understanding and that's the reason for the diagnosis he struggle with lies well he's always of people tell him to be true and that's exactly what leads me to say does this make gullibility good defense can an individual come in


lyon that he had participated in the planning and execution of an attack on an s u v and very importantly he told the l a times on september fifteenth and sixteenth in the series of emails that i am among those responsible


no cognitive problems no language acquisition problems dr ms abbas says on page three of his report no eye contact problems he does report that mr patrols loving indicated when he was younger he had problems following the gaze of


was insufficient to face of that we i think twenty years of practice which i know to this court may not seem like a lot but it's enough to know that when a judge says you're briefing is not sufficient i


both fine you know challenge that mr trial fit the diagnostic characteristics of asperger's there's about a few more paragraphs of discussion of that work with regard to social awkwardness and social interaction and


for the last year which is two thousand and one so they could do that any time up until two thousand is not affected by one seventy two that's well there there are two different things one seventy two is built into the statute and that he has expressed


my right to file under sixty five eleven unless and until the taxpayer either waived the five year carry back in these years or the two year carry back the carry back is automatic it is conferred mandatorily and automatically


of sentencing and it's those the facts those facts that are in dispute and given that the court make clear that he was relying on mr latest past conduct his criminal history in determining the sentence primarily and


brief also i wanted to point out here that in the in the us with case what they seem to say is that merely doing what is appropriate testing of the credibility of a witness does not constitute improper attacking of the victim that draws


on the tapes and then evidence or testimony by the by the agents as to what that equated to i could yes but there is a price all over there's wiretaps and then the agents law in my opinion this is what i mean


news you want to certainly fit the ties of the defendant has with family it's a factor to consider the government doesn't dispute that but it cannot outweigh the defendant's criminal history and his conduct on parole the defendant has been released


there's no indication that judge anderson believed he was i mean the issue was presented to him that he was taking these medications and that they had impaired his judgment and that and so to the extent that the court was looking at his competency and his


decisions and the providing of aid or money to procure schools and the question there is is it a matter of truly private choice of the individual once they obtain the services i


meet the definition of structure that taylor requires and it has to be more of a permanent structure not just like a car so even though that this this trailer coach could be inhabited


that complaining that the fan in this case but even if he was it doesn't matter because eighteen of that is included within the guidelines and evolve it all decisions rejected the argument that california law is overly broad and this natural


case for the sport the gun physician cause in those cases was a similar similar scenario where a charge was made in opening statement but then continued cross examination it makes no sense that the governor would have to wait to introduce


in santana basically testified that some time in the question was at about eleven ten that evening close to midnight did an individual approach so it instantaneous timeframe is somewhere


exact date question but somewhere around their answer probably she calculated able fourteenth april twenty fourth not only is that much broader than the two and a half weeks that mr testified


conclusion is very different than the reality of what's happened time she in her mind is telling her husband open the door they're going to shoot the house but the government can't be held responsible for her reaction to that she's not thinking they are not


that he said do you have a warrant and they gave him the noticed and he said is that it and the opposite is said yes sir if you look at the officers took chronological photos of their shirts


dangerous weapon is an element of that offense and no one disputes that it is a question asked after the jerk still the jury at mr smith's trial with instructed that there are three elements of the crime and none of those three


evidence underlying the argument you presented the same perspective you're trying to present to us now this was a foam quote unquote night and therefore could not meet the requirement and of course they showed no this was a melted all of the


purely as contract language it seems to me that this breach provision really is predicated on a situation where you have a defendant in there wanting to withdraw his or


was pleading guilty to that offense he vigorously denied that he ever threatened to arrest the victim and left the threat we're talking about a veto if there were a trial it would be whether or not touching the belt constituted a threat to


age to account but there's nothing on the record to indicate that the court gave the guidelines presumptive weight or any greater weight than any of the other factors in determining that in addition to the statutorily mandated sentence which work to find it was required


argument then it certainly does meet a requirement that it's not clear that is conscious of lawful i think it's easier i mean if i were going to show sufficiency i have to there's no rational basis for the jury's verdict while i have to do now is show that it's not clearly prohibited by the law and i don't think that it


right if this were a case where the guidelines actually came out to less than the statute trying maximum i think that what you're saying might describe the situation where it could matter in this case though


factor number two he worked at the close racing renewal center and there's a letter in the record basically working to bring violence and gang violence to an end so we had community involvement he also was a member of the soul of that community church his entire family resided in the united states


federal crime of the government and the first place the government doesn't dispute that the defendants may have had some legitimate claim to some of the money that the government believes they were going to attempt to extort


judge screwed it up in this case we have something that's definitely in the magistrate's province which is the probable cause determination and i agree with you on that point and the stance that the agent told the judge what she


insane verdict so under strickland the prejudiced question is would any one of those four defenses have resulted in reasonably likely to result in a different outcome these two district court judges


defense counsel that they thought safety valve would apply it had different understanding cers of just cutting some slack for defendants that congress doesn't want you to cut them slack or because they're giving you information you're willing to pay for


accordance with or that i think they also could say then accordance with thirty five fifty three and they chose not to do that so the article the argument then is basically they've written a careful list here and nineteen


numerous cases than me whether case is the most recent from the circuit but there are a number of sister circuits all who have all who say that you have to consider the guidelines first by making inaccurate guidelines determination and then there are also the principles of the sentencing


here's why if i would have asked may i refresh your recollection mr witness wasn't there a finding in an earlier proceeding where you had been found the witness would have answered or most likely would have answered


further to say that he could bring in the fact of the previous adjudication without giving it the emphasis of the luster of the oregon supreme court and without then going on to talk about the penalties


between the victim and the defendant there was evidence that the victim in the defendant were not getting along leading up to the killing and there was evidence well actually the victim died by going overboard on the ship and drowning after


which that court ignored sovereign immunity principles to which i hold it that the national appeal division proceedings of the department of agriculture are under section five fifty four and therefore subject to the equal


that he missed two days that's all he did yeah the company is alleging he was gone for two weeks they are not three weeks that the union in theirs and they're stuck in that cross motion in the grievance procedure makes it very clear


presentation of a proof of a pivotal author of a damning investigation against the against the against a response against petitioner that could lead to an ultimate banishment of the father of a us citizen the


offenses but with the changes in them a great loss for many of these are not considered aggravated felonies he does not have any criminal history involving you know drug dealing a lot of conduct that we


they contacted


didn't want to prohibit it listed concealed carry and recitation of things that had previously passed muster right yes so it's only mentioned was that concealed carry laws had been upheld under the second amendment


law under heller that a second that a i'm sorry a self defense right is the central component of the second amendment a look that's an interesting interpretation of heller but it's


they don't necessarily have to control pleadings and i guess the argument so it was raised so we can't rely on briefs we have to treat any brief that makes a facial challenge as if it's also making it


have an understanding of their rights and not make a hasty decision if the court and hear hear the word he sees actually used by the supreme court i believe that it's supported by the facts of the case and it's not just you know it's the state's hill it's other cases relying on help


to determine that he has the ability through later motion practice to deal with issues of individual as contractual defend until you're saying these individual lives defenses could could be put in different categories they could if appropriate


and then saying well i know i agreed that i wouldn't solicit them and i wouldn't work with them and i wouldn't get any input from them but i'm now entitled to put in my report that i did this report on behalf of them and that was all consistent with the first


reflected in treatment notes in complaints in in something else of that nature and that just is not present in this case now


whole that the union could have the effect that we represent employees throughout time means additionally this case presents an are just fishable matter under article three because it provides for prospective remedies against the company's past them awful kind of


to assert the stigma plus


to prison and i'm also not sure exactly how they calculate the time credits in indiana but approximately seven years there on a thank you thank you thank you to all counsel you have the additional flanks of the court for accepting disappointment


where would have one thing about that your honor and that is that the district court seems to have penalize me not just for that but seems to have without saying it deny me the right to refer to evidence in the record placed there by defendants and i don't think that's the purpose of


person but my agent talked to him on the telephone she specifically falsely represented that these people were well known to her that she met with them in person that she knew what their financial situation was because she had reviewed their


there is some dispute about what happened when she came back this court of course has to accept miss wheatley's version of those disputed facts but i think it's important to note there are no facts in the record offered by the defense the defendants


whether or not a rate provided by a private entity in a private contract is above or below the rate was actually provided this is standard fare for courts and in this case all that the court would have to do is compare the rate


and because of these interpretations within this court's purview it stands to reason that the i c c would want to regulate this entire process of change by way of background a little bit and a r a s is nothing more than working in tandem with the public


point why wasn't the statement reliable in that case while in essence the associate statement was that as the defendant sold drugs in larger quantities the price per


appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule that's the justices statement of their holding and it's got the word objectively in it you know how would we be going about looking at anything else


because reasonable officers could have relied on binding precedent to pre two thousand and twelve i think the case that is actually most responsive to counsel's argument is another good faith exception case that came


that we're using their fingerprints they're going to start wearing gloves but defendants are allowed to test friends of methods they're allowed to verify forensic methods whether it be fingerprints or hair analysis or bite marks or or things of that


of contract interpretation in fact in its prior opinion this court noted that in light in light of the fact that the parties have not briefed this question before our court we remain for the district court to interpret the contract and consider the merits


evidence to believe that that my client also was responsible for and that she also engaged in as well including making the family meal every night going to the going to the grocery store not only for her family but for for the complaining witness in this case as well and


and beer for the defendants she was always in a hurry she was always alone her child was left back with the defendants literally being household as a form of manipulation in order to induce her to come back to


her doctor's appointments to her meetings with her attorneys and it's no wonder that the adult victim was not truthful when she's meeting with these attorneys and other social services people when her abuser is sitting


cockroaches for example pass carry bacteria that can aggravate invade asthma just like the conditions mr gray alleges here and because the mr gray did present sufficient evidence that was not adequate


tasks for the union to satisfy the union aspect of this and the first task really says the arbitrary nation or nature of their conduct and that goes to in essence some of the case law the for instance the


yes the only thing the u a w could have done would be at the fire at the end of the day when that interlocutory really became final bring across appeal from their appeal saying they were improperly dismissed as applying


are to straddle the line between two different theories here failure to promote and pay to this pay discrimination and i don't think resolving what the agency's discretion to use these these other


to get the bottom line of my question i know judge i'm sorry actions it's basically that a requirement a requirement that the district court simply modify its


on recordings between miss knight took between mr womack and herself talking about pills and talking about drug buys and a whole host of various other things those recordings are taken out of context but for these


i want to thank judges mannion and hamilton for being there i want to also explain that there will be a second or two delay so i'm very


but under our standard of review those arguments are somewhat misplaced at least where the record provide some support


evidence as to what the union would have pursued had they requested bargaining through the representatives who in this case they say were not contacted the record shows however that in this case the union even requests are going until after the layoffs or were


even though you can't pick up your oil without showing the irrevocable letter of credit


objecting to subject matter jurisdiction you show a knowledge of the action proceeding in the state court and you say you have an intent to submit yourself to that court to challenge something that's going on in that


when i was in the evidence of coverage when it identifies what are the terms of the plan it specifies that any right to the member to receive benefits under the contract and handbook it says they h m o is not liable under the contract


you know investigations if it occurred and i'm not conceding that's a true statement at all well you don't have to that's not the point here ok anything else any other questions


mills a single juror who finds a particular mitigating circumstance they can give that mitigate or the weight of life in this juror was jury was never told that and for those reasons we believe that violates mills worsens maryland thank you mr flood any further


questions the issue about trial court discretion came up and i don't see that upon a finding that some someone is substantially impaired or not substantially impaired that a trial judge has any discretion and that's different than the state


been paid abercromby a dime we asked this court to rule that the duty to defend extends until the final judgment and bound us for all these reasons we asked and heard that the court affirmed the decision of the district court thank you


which are available as of d c s so i think that that is a bit different and that was one of our our elements of what we felt was discrimination because the people who were in need of services were undergoing an entirely separate process of


state courts have said about that statute and they are clear and they are unanimous in concluding that forty five thirty thirteen sixty one presupposes abandonment in the cases since one thousand nine hundred seven have said that abandonment means which sed which


in order to have you testify you can't said no and the state persisted any deals by anyone terry no i'm cross examination defense counsel to try to bring out some evidence that would reveal that


seven years these plaintiffs and their families and their employees have had to live their lives and work their jobs and run their businesses under that cloud but last year based on a well developed factual record the circuit court correctly


funder what i mean by that justices is what we first need to look at and interpret in this insurance policy and whether there is coverage it's a one considered a contract which it is a case on always clear insurance policies or contracts


the court could not sentence her to detention after that initial probation sentencing because it now point that under age drinking she hasn't violated any order of the court and usually typically when there's


are minor and then finally i think that it is that there is nothing that it makes perfect sense that that that the legislature chose to problem lie in their legislature has drawn the line at kids under the age of eighteen


we are here because dr drew is entitled to a fair and impartial judge and i get very concerned because this did come up and particularly the sale of the house came up in the e mails and part of judge bailey's ruling and part of his arguments were


citing to a only that elected officials have to have been acting within the scope of their employment to become heard well it's the first line of to be that explains who that makes that determination and how it's made they've


attorney general the first part of the clause before the word or doesn't talk about anything about conflict just as a primary seat of such declaration which could be based upon the willful misconduct i understand there's a supposed to be


continue with the commission but we have to notify them within fourteen days or else the second half of course is that we can then five the ninety days after we received notice of the reversal the lack


jurisdiction because there are two different options i mean administrative review process and one process the process of filing in the circuit court is another some point it could have gone to the circuit court pretty much spread it could have gone on the


we also have a person who is found to have substance abuse problem act and that is precisely the type of defendant that this statute plainly was was designed to address someone who whether they're a policeman or a lawyer a


remanded back to the trial court for a proper command been hearing are you going to be representing your client in the trial court no it will be in the public defender and that's my third argument that there's really not effective assistance of counsel i think there


requirements are purely procedural about the specificity of the evidence and if only to raise it that's so there's nothing in the arbitrators amended award that requires just cause that you know the idea of just cause


states thought that sex offenders ought to die they passed death penalty in sex offender cases sex offenses are extraordinarily emotionally charged and more right and maria also that and at trial sad


were not the exact same claims for the exact same parties the claims later asserted were based upon wage payment and collection act these were different from the prior claims that were sort of


was the acting village choir and that there was nobody else that had been down there that could take it and if you look at the transcript i think it's volume two of the record on appeal and pages fifty to fifty two


story the police officer also testified that based on this defendant specific seating location and that specific vehicle that would have obstructed his view and i think that's one of the things that if you read enough of these material struction


he said it was for a rape he still did not testify as to the age he didn't testify that it was a child there were other things that again the d n a evidence does not call and mysterious me into question


because what the plaintiff is saying here is not that dr coleman changed his testimony in some non material aspects the point of this really attacking defense counsel and say defense counsel


what's what's in evidence and that is the notice of the hearing and the pleading that's before the court the pleading the only pleading that was before the court on that day was the proposal that's in there and i also point


getting a nice long order that said well here's what i was thinking this is what my plan was i get a short little order that completely changes what he did the first time that he doesn't explain what he did the first time you


that the trip business really the purpose of the trip by craig hart's own testimony and steve want to make or who was the c e o at the time we tried the case testified that any trips that the plane made


the courts are required to strictly construe restrictive covenants to protect an employee's fundamental right of employment and for that reason there's no the importer only gets one chance


without trying to throw in some terms and not all you know for simplicity sake you just put a reference to that not compete that you sign when you first order companies still remains in


payments i don't think that is consistent with that or a downpayment is not consistent with a lease an option purchase would be maybe option money the balance of seventy four thousand dollars would be consistent with at least the option of purchase


clearly deserved the grandparents by no formal order were essentially we say grandparents i mean very first actually the parents for porn have here because of something that the daughter did and


you took your foot off the brake and started moving forward with the flow of traffic what is negligent about that what that does is that well two things first of all my answer was limited to my answer was given


or making some determination of how to appreciate it should be calculated the problem here is that the way the commission on about the exercise constituted a drastic change from its past


say about that is the allocation of this sure tax is an issue of rate really it's initial rate design and if there's any area where the commission has very raucous creche and it's in great design there's no such thing as a correct rate


we have to go back then and say eight tan date identify what misses that would have had a conversation with her assume that they have the witnesses then identified who were responsible for the


bentley acting as architectural control committee with personal knowledge of the restrictive level covenants approved by or garlic cultures building plans specifying the construction if it prefab modular home what


are pertinent concise and very well reasoned by


over there to that area the other thing that's also a little bit not bringing out here my client said that when he went north there nobody checked him coming and there was a guy at that gate whole opening checking people going out into the


marital asset was three hundred eighteen thousand nine hundred two dollars so this farm when you look at the way the judge divided the numbers in the end constitutes a out two thirds of the total state if you took it out the


we claim that it was our pride when we found out about it when we saw the deed it was oppositionists the deed was acquired properties acquired during the marriage and some marital assets that's when it got too it was paid for with a gift well then it turned out that wasn't true then


is it the end of the decision i just read it's the last page that decision that was prepared by judge drummond mr shock prepared one on what i read to you first where he said he lied when mr shock had a proposed


trying to in fact impose liability when union pacific which came to this is a stranger forty years after the events that they want to focus on and as a result we say there is no legal basis to


step in the shoes of every taxpayer in the way county the way the property tax code is set up by the legislature that prohibits class action allows for mass jointer of players that just can't be the law and


reservations too early i don't have to address the issue of a kind but also here is all the cases cited demonstrating or discussing a conflict or what's called true conflicts were serious conflicts and those are those


years before we even had d n a testing what was the sense of that language back then when we when the presumption of of legitimacy absolutely control i think when you


pros and cons a checklist based on them considering abortion she didn't produce that those things in


any restrictions on her to say that you rely on doctor fletcher's opinion was unreasonable and it hits you with penalties because of that completely ignores that her treating physician did the same way and under the these circumstances it


and of course even if the court decides that in some sense i did waive it waivers not a limitation on this horsepower you can still consider it anyway but i think the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is clear they don't have the subject matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any


if i'm thinking in terms of you made reference to confidential information and there were business practices perhaps you need to see with me of getting dates in doing that


understand how this process works in do you have to get to the end of the application process and have you get word of the tax credits before you feel a little bit of need to go through with this not necessarily this many places where that could have stopped


to that point i just have a really specific question about the evidence i think the officer was testified that she made statements to the effect of you know let us help him because once the sun was out of the of the apartment


care taking question in and this is the problem of the clearly established right i know i promised not to get into that but but graham is not terribly conducive to analyzing the use of force in the community caretaking situation but if we if we must graham you have an


react she had called for backup backup and not arrived to the officer did have a need without the you know questioning it with twenty twenty hindsight to take control of that scene so that the officer was not in danger i think you've answered my question ok and then that of course wraps around


had entered the united states on july two thousand and twelve and then they had a file custodian the border patrol agent that has possession of the file and all the documents in it and out of all of those documents what they chose to present was


it they say that you have to do specific things and you have to possess a specific intent and including oddly enough the present ability to give harm to the other person that's obviously lacking in this case because if it's a hoax bomb you can't


kelly's contract with hope who at the outset was a cost plus incentive contract which was one that required to actually have the money up front page kelly would give a budget of what it planned


case thank you thank


seven lines down at line twenty two the government says now ladies and gentleman we talked about the threat and the words themselves are a threat without question but as i talked about when we discuss the law one thing that we need to find is whether this qualifies as a true threat


that could be could infer that all that meant was that he knew that it was wrong to collect he would be eligible to collect benefits disclose that he was married correct but in order to receive those benefits he would


but you went to the same source yes and the numbers are still different i'm just trying to understand how that happened well what happened is that rather than use the numbers for the discrete d o t codes she used the numbers for the o p s group that's for the


or the exportation of weapons from the united states and there is a case that the boehm an exception which was decided back in one nine hundred twenty two and that allows for extra tour territorial


the active importation they are working with others to cause whenever someone imports something there's always typically someone else who actually transports a third party conveyor that transports the actual


deciding whether to remembering well you'd be ignoring the crowd or and that's just the certainly the worst option is having one stay when case with the same claims proceeding in state court and another


he does identify several other issues that he that he has a problem with i have not made that the focus of the inquiry of new counsel because this issue the issue of the complete


subpoena three of the immigration attorneys who were percipient witnesses and three of the nigerian spouses who were involved in the conspiracy as well all three immigration attorneys invoke their fifth amendment privilege before the court and it is


i i'm going to reject him as a point count so so opposing counsel says at the incident in i guess in july where he rejected the harley and the court said ok i find that you've waived the


only to reverse here one has to knowledge is that the letter can be reasonably read both ways and if you actually read the if you read the second paragraph under the heading of the introduction of


court with three years of actual data in front of it showing how this is played out now we have not asked the court to take judicial notice of the data that's in those filings simply to note that there is another court where this has all played out and so


it ought to be on a full record or in front of judge robert seattle as you know is one of a number of cities around the country where police reform is playing out under the oversight of a federal judge which is what we have here baltimore cleveland ferguson


necessary physical and occupational therapy and we ability ation lost income due to injuries and lost income unnecessary child care transportation other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution


apply if there's a joint venture in the joint venture in this foreign location and the search doesn't comply with local law once as we have here the items reach a place of american jurisdiction and i want to emphasize


voice low i tried the issue presented on this appeal is whether a spinal products company misrepresented the success of an acquisition when it failed to disclose that it had acquired defective and obsolete inventory and


individuals then yes the he hasn't met his burden and it's it's not the fault of the district thank


area where judge burns erred in failing to make that determination and with these guidelines amendments the sentencing commission is trying to create some consistency i know your honor expressed to the government that there's an inconsistency when when district court judges are applying this minor


at the time of the violation not three years later litigation i'm going to take these facts into account and i think the court can see from the sentencing the court just simply did not apply that legal standard the court did the court didn't recognize that it


alleged failure to pay invoices and middlebrooks alleged over charges on those invoices my understanding is putting all of in perspective that your client does not dispute that it did not


overview it applied plain their review to that point i guess judge w asked you know what do we do with a situation where you have an indictment that is broad enough to cover both sets of conduct in a factual basis that is


this case that also doesn't really have much analysis at all and at minimum under prong two where you cannot have a clear obvious error when there is conflicting press in pointing in both directions in this course not you know pine we can't have clear


took the cook inlet a talent look at now this part of the easy they took it out yeah this is miller we're out of the out they took the one area where fishing and fishing was actually happening and i said we're not going to produce a fishery management plan for that area so is there anything other than the


ideas what with the nature of an f m p if the federal government decided to look alaska is doing a great job so what would


lot about the state of alaska thank you very much on appreciate the five minutes you're supposing for the state of alaska to try to adjust the questions that come up your honour's every fishery requires some conservation and management


parole right right and if he had it would there have been anything that he could have done that ever could have made him eligible to get reset and seeing i think the first thing that he should have done is


but what evidence is there in this record that is that the january two thousand and nine report detailed unsafe and unsound practices i think that can be i couldn't find it's not well right we don't have access to that


permitted to give lay opinion testimony that's lay pinion testimony about her sophistication and what's the is there one more there or there are several more there's also the fact that the district court voluminous evidence about how she spent money that was unflattering and then there's


class action the plaintiffs assert that during the period november two thousand and twelve through october two thousand and thirteen a toaster project lead misled investors in the market to believe that its two key products


be forced to stop selling as a result of these revelations the stock fell forty six percent be flecked above the damages sustained by our clients in the class the company has never recovered and stock is selling for less


appropriate time after merits discovery expert reports and the like thank you your arms thank


the daniels up again on behalf of the united states your honor argument is the same in this case the district court was not clearly erroneous in determining that this defendant was not entitled to a minor role either under the law


right so what one of the points we made in our brief is that they should have been allowed to introduce corroborating evidence to law enforcement agents which he only used deceptive tactics and in fact they're allowed to use it and this court has approved and the supreme court


ordered to move anthony brown after he was identified as a snitch and he's snitch in the jail facility can be killed so for his own safety as has been done hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times as we had testimony at the trial the inmate is removed from the


the defendant's original motion to suppress this it lays out the timeline in detail as to how sex and came on the radar of the u s attorney's office in the f b i and that timeline indicates that it's true he was not a target he was informed he was not a


you know i don't see that is inconsistent with that he physically was out of the car and he said is there anywhere he says no there was no wire there was no microphone he first let's answer that question is already where it where that is contested that particular things up there


case isn't there let me rephrase the question slightly and see if you can help me yes here is do you agree that the statute of limitations in this case expired before the case was removed before it was actually


if you had to find an error rate every time a scientific theory came around you would you would result you would require human experimentation for all kinds of terrible things i think and it's unreasonable


about at the point of turnover and i would note as well that the cargo manual issue is something that council raised for the very first time on appeal that was not something that was argued to the district court below for all these reasons we believe the court should reverse the


recommendation was to make the chiefs position full time which it had not been in the past and then the budget that was proposed allowed for three additional full time positions and a part time positions


some procedures required under the home rule charter as to which we have no evidence in the record such as getting salary board approval for changing salary publishing a summary of the budget a newspaper


there's no reference to the alleged misconduct about this the these statements of the gun near the school shouldn't we then can siddur that conceded by the government


beginning to end in bridgewater new jersey with the decision not to reveal information about a tiriel the billion tire fraud entire fraud nothing that mr scherer ixil when he bought this machine in south carolina at office depot is that issue in this


simply should not be considered the board and immigration judge are can consider and they often do i mean i'm in a position of only seeing the denials of these cases and that's often the basis for denial that's


hospitalized for an extended period of time and then she was fired for taking this extended leave which qualified under the f m that way what i believe she does your honor suggests that she had been hospitalized and had


his view she should be terminated and made that recommendation as he had to do to judge moto judge mottos position was that based on his own knowledge of things that were going on in that office that terminations was warrant


what's going on in the sensing arena with the trial courts and these enhanced ones because we've we've exalted we've exalted these departure issues in these guidelines adjustment issues


pointed out is that circular requires a restoration for the public good there were in the damage thief the environmental harm was caused to the public and circular requires the when the that's not an argument


seven o two which course was adopted by the court below in this case the court held reynolds has not repaid any funds to anyone and reynolds cannot seriously argue that it is restoring its overstated


about what the proper procedure is but isn't that the defense in this case but the defend the assertion in this case from counsel is that the client didn't know but there's no proof in this record that that's true precisely because there's no evidence of record


limited in lish who is arrested after so many years and in unfamiliar environment who is trying to both figure out what happened to him contact his old lawyer trying


today a first of all i'd like to reserve five minutes my time make please the court to thank you today we asked the court to correct the manifest injustice in denying the board of education coverage for a defense


constitutional why isn't there the core protection here it's not a core protection your honor because several reasons one there is not a broad class of individuals like there was an heller that are prevented from owning up in possessing a firearm hell


every possible situation but the only conduct charged in this case was mr marrs a relative possession of that firearm in the only evidence about his possession was his possession of the firearm in


whereas with a pronouncement from us one way or another certainly district courts themselves would have some guidance they lack at the present yet yes your honor absolutely clarity clarity is always a good thing and obviously


you're basically saying you could live with limited to illegal on marketability yes i have an obviously my primary interest is is is that good enough earnings beside the voter but you asked me to question should the court adopt


encouraging future official action and the camcorder endorsed that concept future of official action that the public official may already have determined to take is a gratuity concept and this is an important point your honor is because the government chides


that the official action is taken in response to the bribe and that i know to be the predominant reason i thought what is your door purpose argue the dual purpose argument your honor is that it does have to be the causal factor and if


echoing your honour's hypothetical about demanding a low show job he calls it extortion your honor but that's not trading the specific official action he told this court that it can be bribery absent that this or that this for that is quid


at this point in the proceedings and that's the problem with the commission standard is it's requiring the secretary to prove that there could have been a harmful exposure now once the existence


multiple subsidiaries and says several of those subsidiaries had independent ly lines of s tests liability they were not they were companies that had been acquired by


particular issue of insurance assignments but i think it's important to be clear that the question before us is not does section five twenty four g impliedly preempt those restrictions the question is does


bankruptcy code and it wanted to depart from the way that non bankruptcy law orders the rights and obligations of the party is it does so expressly and in great detail that's the case


adequate means for its implementation what does a five twenty four g plan here campaign under the statute it must contain a trust


sensually two responses to that one is the one weighed out in our brief which is essentially look this is the way congress wrote the statute it's expressly preemptive there's plenty of case law such as the midland


interface pulled out of the house my client's brother was illegally detained moments earlier in the supposedly unrelated incident so this was in the middle of the night this was a situation where the the


employee said well things might have been different had he taken the time well the interesting thing is when when he says that that helped me well i believe it would have helped now but that he must mean if you had


trial here we have parties coming in you know six seven eight years later it just isn't fair to us to expect anything to come out of a hearing i don't know if we could find out who was in charge of the c s o's or the marshals in the courtroom that


your if if you look at the border she she was very transparent she knew that there was a relationship between her and the prosecutor the defendant was it was had notice of this particular races or what


individual i get the feeling we're talking past each other mr meyers which you can see that if there really is a basis for saying they're simply biased that what she thinks has nothing to do with the question if they're supplied


committed no criminal violation at all it's not it's a criminal violation one that walters was convicted of to encourage undocumented


other but either two of two or two of three sexual assaults in cranbury township for that year both were led both investigations were led by detective evanson and the state trooper trooper that we deposed this individual was alternately a serial rapist across


and the same thing as you're quite right your honor in the first part of your question i assume that you meant that in giving it to the pharmacy in your hypothetical unit they were going to be actually marketing and selling it they are going to be engaging in the activities that have strived in the


require his reimbursement from monies that's a substantial money that he then he comes in to subsequent to his not doing not at all your honor that's precisely when it's supposed to happen change circumstances


liquidate it he could have borrowed money from his family but the fact that the ira is not as liquid as say a savings account doesn't mean it should be ignored because we also have the similar counts what about stocks what if he had held some x on stock in the course of


don't you wish to testify or have your parents testify i have no testimony and no witnesses so you know if it easily falls it easily falls within thomas and then mr white though says i tried to explain to him that i wish for him to take the stand or his parents so it's


and again schumaker received no part of that settlement with respect to the forty five day provision this is an issue that is of great concerns of the surety industry but i will say that if we look at


this market and the markets described in toledo mac yes insley you know back you had just as involved with trucks a big market situation where what happens if you have a special water bid only


smooth competitors and use them affirmatively which they did in their marketing materials well which are in the evidence to switch customers so not only they have knowledge they begin prices that are


problem and see that's why but let's see judge hardiman your your question about the the if in this of some of these things i think also emphasizes why it wasn't until he


heart you know all those things clearly you know the movies is kind of on the margins of what might be considered as vulgar well that but it's us to the question i'm interested in particularly with regard to you


reference to the word in the bracelet there was one documented and one sort of rumored episode of girl saying a boy saying something to girls about their boobies that undertaker of course is not substantial material disruption because that


errors the consequence your honor is it we believe that the this records review of the underlying claim determination was tainted or colored by that misapprehension regarding conflict of interest well but in this


correct even if it's wrong of course of this record said you didn't follow your own plan and that was highly problematic with your response to the district court's assertion that you were obligated by the terms of the plan is to make some kind of a assessment


you need to add the word synchronization if all it means is that each one of the logic elements of is functioning properly then why use the word synchronization and why even add that language


transaction and he says the process is of this invention quote permit cellular telephone one hundred two effectively utilizing the application on server computer on network even though that's the keyword even the so uber


again from the background through the summary through the written description every figure every disclosure all points in one direction the use of the thin client model of the microcontroller as distinguished from the use of a computer much in there is no disclosure


bad word is not supported by substantial evidence i have two responses first in the in my brief i talk about the actual evidence about use marketplace where it's sold but this is the same issue racing town in town the bed


we cite the portion where the board found that everything in the pattern that it was looking at was a known technique being applied with a predictable result and that is underpass are enough before you get the motivation to combine but in


you know that's not an attack you can ignore those things so i've read that the patent talks about the fact that you may be able to use knowledge of the taps in order to adjust the threshold in order to do things like repair


and when the box is open you won't see them either because they're not there it's a completely different design and that's really the issue now i don't think there's anything terribly surprising in the


outwardly may indicate some things there but you still need the ominous clue given your argument the distinction the pattern with our rectangular utility trucks and the photograph of a six six two


present there are two issue we came forward and we presented evidence from dr rice minus and in our in our remarks that are reply that the claims were broad and that they could be read in


seem to me to create an attention on definiteness problem i think which one would avoid if you gave the representative batch instruction to the us i think your honor pharmaceutical batches requires either a representative back


and the district court in in illinois and the district court in jersey have both found that the pharmaceutical batches of the seven to seven was just too a product and as we found in illinois that my money infringes


in structural last functional terms and i believe that that whether or not this is used for balancing or not the luggage could be clearly defined as structures dimensional and


the board's obligation under the administrative procedure act is to set out in detail the factual findings they are making right and it's and it's possible at least and i know you're not going to you're not prepared to concede this but that if the matter went


language of the specification the claims as a whole if they are part of the tape are there in the tape or their position nearby and so language is present provided about the location now in the cases where a limitation is


need to prove the critics how lucky of this you would need to prove that the result is unexpected and i think it's important to look at the issue of critic alex again you look at what the specification says on this issue the specification doesn't refer to it is critical simply


filing date was for purposes of their need to annotate it and then you trying to do an update that you started with the date of your provisional right because you presume to that that was the date that the law would allow you know i think that's right


over as to certain portions of the ink an expiration of the augustine declaration it's so important to note that there are glaring deficiencies in the claim charge there are multiple elements that have no citation to any evidence so even if some of the evidence


the back pressure regulator has the required properties that's all that this and i think that she cares about that's where another part of the confusion another part of rooting out from the claim comes from and that's about the possible fluids because the specification


was smaller memory requirements second was faster data access and retrieval but the third and the one that i think the most important improvement is the fact that the claimed inventions


notifications or the other that's the invention and what the court did was it race that invention and said you could have one pipe did challenge referring to some sort of lot of he didn't define did camera cursive in the


make internet into a virtue circuit network and that at that time the internet communities which way where are we going so there's a lot of turmoil


testers which are in fact provided for in the contract as you're responsible it but the government's for us to then come in when it does its testing and do your work that's sort of the core of your argument isn't it that is not the core of our argument or that there


particular decision to institute a day there in that position they say they are also a patent in that they have cases like this before the p t o and well i think if you look at the p p o s brief on this they


he does and he had certainly had the opportunity to do make that testimony he did not so there is i think that what you see the board doing is on this what are public property point that the ninety percent


password is a string that's not a file and dr wicker agreed with this earlier deposition testimony that a string cannot satisfy the file imitation it was a double burden to show that this was obvious and it did not do so at trial the token base for mitchell of the similarly


whicker that moving this functionality from the server to the client was well within the ability of the person skilled in the art and that's it a one two one five nine and was neglected by my friend which is people


goes offline it has there has to be a mechanism in the example used in the disclosure is to provide a data packet since a message from that process to the connection server saying i'm offline and then the disclosure teaches us what where what


made which where the domestic producer puts forth its point of view that is that purchase was made to the petition filed so we do have two sides to the story there regarding the well let's let's look at what


here apples potentially clearly did that it clearly on the side of supporting the ground of obviousness apple submitted about fifteen pieces alright if i'm hearing you right some of these limitations


implemented at least the patent doesn't give us the examples of the implementation of the idea i would agree that it doesn't give a specific example of the implementation in the specifications but i would disagree that the claims are somehow limited to an idea


the fruits following the idea that nutrients could affect health has been known for generations and the idea that nutrients could affect gene expression was absolutely known before these patents were filed which is shown by our submission


all the trial court made factual findings that exceeded the court's standard of review the court stated that the de minimus margins must be considered more representative of the industry wide pricing behavior during the p


that and basically it was an abuse of discretion because the board did not have substantial evidence to decide the way they did it all they had was an application for nine hundred ninety six that showed alleged abuse there was a cancellation action in two thousand that


don't ever say that to me i think wide eyed respectfully disagree on i think we are saying that we are trying to distinguish random motion devices through the limitations that we've made and that's the basic argument we are making it goes on earlier declaration i cite the more


so supports the broader term wheels a narrower term it has nothing whatsoever to do with the jets and has nothing to do with the vector it has to do with the wheels and so i disagree strongly that there are intertwined in any way there were separate arguments the second point i would like to make


for the purposes of providing fitness and exercise and workshops and it was a very general one and then they had she had a special program


it's not a binding decision obviously own department and i'm mindful of the fact that clearly it bears on the reasonableness of the department's actions but it is entirely possible that the department got p v a wrong and yet its


so it is it is not appropriate to try and determine what the meaning of these are simply by focusing is the government likely to do on one term pending before the department now that the the the government other


origin is not put into the material that is cordiant if the material said i come from the user as opposed to i come from third party then the origins would be part of the descriptive content


you're on now let me be clear there are two sets of claims at issue in this entire review and they have been divided nice and neatly and evenly the interposing claims on the one hand which are six seven thirteen fifteen eighteen and twenty one and then


players fourteen or fifteen are independent claims are clearly independent claims and all independent claims have different scopes than other independent claims otherwise they wouldn't be independent claims but the key point is under facebook's reading the word all would be completely superfluous they


what economically comparable from getting about it whether they produce of the vision a lot of the products how do you see how do you establish that she and i can you know even under your desk of court said well if they don't explain


for one thing the text being typed in the first area and we think it was well known in the art and x or ga mixes it is an example of a reference that supplies the idea that when you're correcting a word you might want to see the purge where you're typing it before you corrected


experimental testing that if you took the modification was proposed here that was a modification which is taking everything about the gross reference and adjusting it only to reduce the reaction time gross satisfied to seventy two


board's decision page statement in the board simply says that the modifications would quote result in a lower free simple sugar content but that's not what the


but really i'm not trying to be flippant but let me ask you i am sorry sorry no can you focus for a moment for me on the residual doubt issue here where can i


same district court judge well but again i indicate that it may not be the same district court judge and secondly i'd say that strickland actually removes the idiosyncracies from the district court judge when we analyze this under prejudice we're not supposed to necessarily look


indifference right correct correct and so the position of bethesda is that well let me ask you this is there anything in the consent decree that but there's no had with the with


aware of on the front end so that's already an independent basis to affirm but moreover there is no prejudice because the last calculation was not a detailed forensic accounting type calculation required no knowledge of gap principles no knowledge of tax law nothing that you would


aggregate their testimony only their testimony only covered a one hundred and fifty dollars pages this was a wiretap i have a question for you and i do appreciate the


government and their records then on notice that he is talking about both the drugs and the gun i


it's certainly relevant con how is victim i mean how as patient as a harmed by the alteration of his record well it's harm or potential harm your honor doesn't the harm doesn't have to be manifest the potential harm is enough


a response to a trial memorandum where the government acknowledged that this evidence was sent it was it was in the physical possession of the city of miami police it was sent to a warehouse it was targeted for destruction and it was destroyed by the city of miami


was where and let me get it the right way was for it was evidence that you know the government is surely appreciated the significance of the evidence in this case under and i understand that under


granting in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment as the statute is unconstitutional in this case mr nursy was charged with a retaliation under the retaliation


being done and according to the codes can be done by a qualified technician the role of the doctors who was to read the testing and to provide the


so i really don't need to explain that part of the case there's an additional argument of the government raises second part of this where they say well these are coastal claims and because they're coastal claims and because dr schneider had previously misrepresented in our application to


losers as they refer to it that wants to have the federal courts undo the thing and they're right and i've just tried what i'm trying to do is to end it literally sort out


good morning thank you your honor i may please the court when miss hood filed her complaint in this case five years ago she asked for a gender dysphoria policy that conform to professional standards so that she could receive


only under c and so if it can only be counted under forty one point one c then we add one point is there something wrong with my analysis and i'm missing something here no your honor


pronouncement of the sentence it is discussing only the length of term of imprisonment it's not discussing the characterization whether or not it's a prior term of imprisonment and there boos who stated which i think this quote is is very helpful it says the


so i regret that she's not with us but in many ways she is with us because she's read and prepared and i've got her questions my clerk put out


but it's completely insidious because just as in all states the james the the argument that the problem with the argument was that it it made it personal for the jury it essentially said your insurance rates might go up because of cases like this


determination is independent of the underlying claim the underlying claim just simply establishes whether there is sufficient culpable conduct to go to the punitive damages question that


are were in this case and you can obviously we all have an idea of what a general service or does but you can certainly contract out certain rights duties or responsibilities you can say i'll do x y and z but not a b and c


ija pyramid it's not a case where these facts were known before the injury what suddenly were seized upon afterwards mr mccurry let me ask you about a different subject if you're close to wrapping


certifications he had to sign under penalty of perjury he is told on these certifications that misrepresentations are prosecutable that this is a an offense and you can be prosecuted for line that is evidence of willfulness and for that reason he can never show that