final decision i'm not certain that the department is arguing that the chief is the final decision maker i think the department is arguing that the board is the final decision maker and that there is no review avilla the board's decision


standard upon what's the dispute i believe that the department's position in again and is that the river the process because they have filed a petition for judicial review of the unfair labor practice


know with respect to the time in attendance issue i understand that there's been some discussion about whether the computer vs the paper and is a big change or diminish change well that may not be a major change for an office


exist if the pizza cannot enter that default judgment in the first place only the claims would be cancelled it would look very much like an ex party reexamined which everyone agrees there is no sovereign immunity separate and apart from the role of the director and


god never seen a transcript not fully filed it is peter proceeding that i've been involved in and so is there a general requirement before the board that anything that's filed it's also served on you


jantsch and that is where hard to cap was lacking in terms of the burden of production and when you do actually look at the documents that are in the record the earth this really started with that i just mentioned the the design the design


about the two thousand and three taxes ok under those circumstances to resolve this lengthy litigation forgetting that ill feelings between the postal service and everybody in the us with the government just


that's that you know all you need to do is plug your microphone into the into the into the into your computer and have it send it by by by through port eighty and you're done you don't need these inventions if you have the whole motivation for


which is which is sending smoothly over over the internet and it is not a sufficient motivation we are yours not a sufficient motivation for somebody to put together something that can't even do what that what when what the what the prior


right so the samsung opinion that he said it's in an r appendix a three seven three zero seven three judge krause opinion is the board's determination is supported by substantial evidence straight straight


made by a process under two seventy one g includes made in the united states


submitted at the summary judgment stage and he base and that's it he didn't just make that up people he said looking at milwaukee's and malise tests that shows that they would produce it would produce twenty amps on average over its entire rated


limitation and that construction having been rejected little additional effort need be expended to dispose of the defense theories that rely upon it you know if we're going to say that that construction at the courts construction was


a special occasion to do that so yes right i'd like to make a specific point in the broader point about that if i could with respect to the specific point we do give them specifications so that the boxes that era's a technical or


boxes as most found in this proceeding are staple articles they perform generic functions when they are combined with comcast system or comcast system is a cloud based system all the intelligence in the system resides on the


and the specification explains that the guide can be consist of a server and client set up the set top box and home how servers and these set top boxes perform critical functions in that local interactive program guide


the two duty orders are the following four things why might that not be enough for standing if they say we have those four things even though the specific we're


i guess one argument would be that you were right there are so there's a little bit of confusion and almost melding together of the stabilization doctrine and the accrual suspension rule in her opinion on page eleven not just there


white coat and other things other factors impact the timing of stabilization even if they had nothing those other things had nothing to do with the government's actions because it wouldn't have stopped


that all by way of interpretation of the provision referenced here a seven o three i believe it would have to minimize actions are entitled to be brought by a complaint and not simply thrown out on a on a motion to dismiss so what is the what's


correctly articulated and applied the correct legal standard for reasonable expectations that i'll turn now to westwards allegation that the district court erred in its factual conclusion of no reasonable


disk it's in figure two there's an upload in computer that's recording video and uploading it to the server and then there's a client computer thirty


you're getting them rejected out of hand in the last two trading technology cases for not effectively preserving them but you know it becomes a problem at a certain point when you just throw something out there news suggested we have to


thanks miss nelson since he is not talking about the merits unless you really want to talk i think what could miss allen do you want to briefly address the constitutional issues


claims go to y d t g proteins variants there of my species or by how they're coded by d n a what we gave up was totally unrelated why if i keep proteins and proteins in between other proteins that mind


actually identify what the most percentage is that actually has utility and it can't be something that they're just randomly picked and then use that as a club to sue folks who are using known manufacturing processes and one of them are hitting what we believe is an irrelevant


no they would not the petition would no longer be barred well that's an open question i think the way the statute well the way the p t o itself interprets the statute the answer the question is there would be a


during argument because i think it's important that as this court pointed out that baker he's the expert acknowledged that it was known to stimulate wells and open hole well wars and bigger uses expert acknowledge


additionally because the board did not even address mr richard who's not our expert who's met the nephews expert that is an admission by their technical expert as to how he would do it he wouldn't do it the way that wes teaches to make it


mean that we thought that it was incorrectly decided it's the other way around we thought it was correctly decided just didn't write a detailed opinion know what reasoning understood i want to show you why there are some important distinctions with this case


resiliency and flexibility are it on clay is what i'm what i'm saying is they argued it discloses flexibility in the petition they knew it was a requirement they were required to set forth a claim construction for this term they


on the other side was transparent enough to say that but there is evidence circumstantial evidence which can be strong evidence which supports the inference or that it a reasonable trier of fact could draw the inference and there's a couple of them


japan and japan law for any remedies they may have and in fact that's presumably what's happening in these lawsuits brought in japan so again on the


the presumption can be rebutted by if an alternative reason is obvious in the record and that that made it dawned on me not until i was preparing for argument well how obvious were these ineffective assistance of counsel claims in


i get what you're saying i get what you're saying about the split second decisions but the facts of this case are such that he tossed an option and i understand what judge wins say two to four seconds


fraction of a second a second whatever the rule is that would come out of this case then you're liable and that's not enough of a question for an officer on the scene and again because this actually was a gun this wasn't a mistake you know this wasn't a


construction pay and one one of the long rolls to permanent financing and for each phase or separate set of disclosure that the roles department of finance and suggests doesn't suggest that a change


there any evidence of that having occurred well we have allegations that people our client was driving and people around him like valley drivers and other people would turn and they would get scared thinking there's an accident


very well over the years you know it's not that the the the main effects are or the seller has to have a perfectly are a every detail but it has to be reasonably suited for ordinary use the troop case that we cited i think is very important because


citibank has a practice of paying them when we also have wage statement violations that were never raised and in rainier namely the name of the employer citibank city always citibank always put city on which they miss as opposed to full of full legal


appeal in the second circuit challenging the release in the opt in form or in the settlement agreement as somehow brought she did not do any of those things instead within weeks of receiving her notice which she acknowledged she read the release and she


analysis in this case that the decision should be affirmed on that basis as well in addition to the basis which counsel has not addressed at all which is that she signed an agreement that's in forcible under california contract


that would be one way to show it but you can demonstrate what is called an in the uniform avoidable transfers act the intent to delay hinder or defraud maybe they're not in that order


angeles denied that the two written claims in april of two thousand and fourteen and then when they told you when they denied they simply didn't deny they actually told you that the right person to sue was the school district correct


by meeting a legal action some action as opposed to it's not as opposed to just inaction right oh i see what you're saying you're not talking about legal action you say that the plaintiff has to actually do something with yes


choices that they check off on various forms agencies grand prize for taishan they can choose next day care or they can choose the second day or if they choose next day air or second day air air shipment labels


instance in my initial presentation because you have to what happened at the last instance go ahead you have to calculate in with the first instance to get an accurate measurement of prejudice because in the last incident she told the jury that the


is the only way to read six one three which he talks about a copy of the agreement which is a freestanding agreement and i think when you step back and look at the agreement as a whole especially in context of chan it can't mean what you're saying because it makes no sense and makes eleven point seven and eleven


this point we know the district court did not reject that evidence on that basis and indeed i believe i recall the his memorandum opinion correctly i believe he did discuss it as


no evidence there's some evidence i went through it and i found seven or eight cases that has that seemed to me to be germane to this issue


is are they can they like you like any other party to a contract you can challenge the contract and say that was a mistake or you can say the other side breached it or whatever it is so i don't see why a party to a contract can certainly challenge a


it should have been a complete surprise to anyone in the bankruptcy court yes and if you look at the right court the only reason judge russell heard from mr hughes counsel was that he gave


know he was in atlanta to catch a connecting flight but he wasn't going to spend ninety thousand dollars in atlanta airport he was going to take it back to nevada where he's going to spend it is house but here injury was using some facilities some


prosecutor seized on that too in his closing remarks well you know they're saying that he was afraid and you know maybe was afraid but it wasn't reasonable and if the prosecutor it had to concede well you know you have to convict him of this much lesser


yes from places that are not going to and so one reason why this is a little different that the plaintiffs have pointed to is that some of this happens in outdoor spaces but by


absolutely nothing they were damaged beyond it had to find that the van and stop making the payments clearly the defendant breached the promissory note and i believe that they would have an obligation to mitigate their


principle of mitigating it that your damages on a breach of contract go on or you think that overrides the language in the contract it doesn't it's not in conflict with the contract just because the contract says that


exception and that is the requirement as that work in the x party young opinion that state official have some sort of a connection some sort of connection to enforcement of the alleged unconstitutional statute judgment and in this case it's helpful to


values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest which i believe mirrors the language that your honor is quoting so again that is the overriding interest test that is the higher test that the court the supreme court has articulated applies when


of the appearance the appearance of bias must arise from something more than the fact that you didn't prevail on each of your idea and even given the combination of factors here that's i'll rest on that it's the combination of factors the summary judgment ruling followed by


sooner on that when you look at the cover yaro decision in evaluating harmless error and when you look at hunter with hunter the standard is whether the jury might well have been swayed for the plaintiff's case with proper instruction in kabul yarrow they essentially say we see the evidence


violation of this and addition green became or is instructive in that it had a similar statutory language allowing examinations they said even forgot even though that's there we're still finding a constitutional violation because this


that i'm sorry that they put in the directed verdict form the causation element and the court declined to and that's one of the grounds for appeal because the law is in the ninth circuit and elsewhere that when you have a


mistakenly did something any point without having full authority and discussing it with her supervisors at every step of the process there wasn't it's not like you go to wal mart with security guards slap someone and then you use


facilitator concealing infringement maybe not so much that it actually did those things but that core logic in its mind thought that it would or that it could and that's a jury question


entities that had a relationship with the ultimate product for want of a better explanation we set up the movie is that for the best is the reason they were able to set up this alternate for scheme where they would get a part of the profits


is afraid that he voted no the transfer wouldn't occur but he had already it has already been approved and he had accepted it yet and there's nothing that prevents an employer that says hey we're going to transfer you from coming up and saying hey we're not going to transfer


concerns did not give the jury the the law that it's not unlimited isn't that the real problem here that's in it that that is a significant


the h o age is also one that we challenge because there's the classification is improper putting a person in the h o h unit requires epperson undergo much more


court should look at first the actual policy of mr low and fall at record two eighty six and two eighty seven there the policy by mr lowenthal said we will pay damages up to the policy limits state


event yeah it's something the case well we're over here is a systematic discrimination against non members using the state's collective bargaining powers the


there was no it amazon witnesses testified there was absolutely white that your argument to the jury i mean if you've been admitted that the evidence is competent that then then the evidence is it the jury may choose to believe it may choose not to believe it


the contract contemplates that paramount could approve or disapprove the selection of the composer but that's a far stretch from approving or disapproving of a decision to do the scoring work outside the united states i'm sorry i don't understand


i mean as i understand it what's there is not exactly a settlement is that right that's correct or not not exactly a solomon is the way to put it because this just didn't seem to think a whole lot of the claim to begin with and just backed


record needs to actually consider these facts what was the extent of the risk and doesn't need to be compensated


fraudulent because if she is a full time active professor not on sabbatical not on leave she can't be so the question is how do we know in something if it's within the statute that she is if


tried to get there dispositive rulings from the state court i mean let me and that's why isn't that why shouldn't you be held why isn't regular waiver in let me address that you're on just applicable there's two points


final judgment on the merits then you have the right to come back the federal judge retains jurisdiction to enforce his order so i would suggest to you that this court's decision in duffy


relying on whether something is bullish and the question is whether it can be negligent it can and in fact it can be mere delivery of drugs resulting in death which clearly is not the use of force in terms of the fact


then what the courts say is that test for rightness or case or controversy doesn't matter whether the dispute is on ripe because that becomes part of the substantive procedural dichotomy in house and


grant the motion to compel or you do not and if there is not federal jurisdiction that will quite a subject matter jurisdiction that you would need over the subject matter of the controversy itself you simply deny the motion compel and that's what we're asking to


but the wind between those two which is of course exactly what hernandez was exploring was was critical in this case it was all all the case was about really from start to think so we we have here an


notice to be served prior to the entry of the guilt of plea or trial in this court and that's and recognize that those temporal requirements are for the benefit of the defendant furthermore in this case the court had already ruled on the


alternative designs as evidence to prove that single liability theory of design defect that is not for separate liability claims and i think that in that sense this case is controlled by the rule of well logics which recognizes that when there is a


texas courts the court didn't do anything like that in jena but that wasn't an issue it wasn't but your honor i think that the point is that if the court had believed the cases needed to be submitted differently it would have said so remember the g d was itself


it's edging on to that framework so we can just say look you had one mistake he's learned from it he's moved on that was a long time ago it yeah well that's also has looked at when judging the propriety


about the frequently one because haven't we allowed such conditions where there is a limitation a break let me just say someplace where there might be kids that's over brought i mean here we are in a courtroom in a law school and


was competent you can't meet that i respectfully disagree or i do think that he can meet that prong because it's not required that he show that he was incompetent in fact in order to establish prejudice he merely has to raise a reasonable probability of being in comp


the reply brief observation that the answers at the hearing actually show confusion and not in their non responsive and they don't actually show that he's making


if we take his true defense counsel's affidavit that torre's understood he would be deported if by that time we get to sentencing torre's should have known that he was going to get deported because he had already pled guilty why is he asking for a second chance why is he asking for another


government needs to prove what's what's the point it's inefficient to remain but if that is the standard of we're going to supplement when it would just be few tile to remain and it seems to me that opens the door to supplementation not just on criminal history convictions but on restitution on


to decide why that would be holy ground this to say that language doesn't apply what what's the argument well if you're asking me to assume that holy ground that that the argument is wholly groundless obviously we strongly disagree with


you're seeking well so in noble's the supreme court ordered that a disclosure during trial was under the was proper under the court's in her an authority because rule sixteen did not apply yet it was in the interests of justice that in that


and wants to compel further to school because he did not learn about the recusals until afterwards and it would seem strange to benefit the government for hiding this information from mr pena during the course of the case and then penalize most of them have a duty to tell mr


information some other policeman got the information so it's obvious the policeman unit was giving false information how can that be good but well number one i do think that this case has a little bit of greatness to it in the sense that he was present when


the pattern to mr and yet she tried to get eight point two million dollars and that was the intended loss under to the one point one of the guidelines it's the creator of the intended or actual and so what that's what the district court used in this instance


is that it applies in the context of finding defacto tenure worries system of tenure does not already exist it is undisputed that the university of north texas here has a formal tenure system and that mr wilkerson did not have tenure and was not on the


employment analysis and health that even there because he was proctoring examined that was part of his activities that that deviation still fell within his scope of employment and barred suit that was a one zero one one of six case


where he gained her expertise yes your honor and also would show how she knew her actions would cause the girls to engage in sex acts as one of the pieces of evidence in support of that so even under a heightened standard that was charged in the indictment


well i just try to move off because you only have four minutes left i only want to be very clear that the only issue that might have been waived was this question of who decides to leave or not i gave and i read one hundred percent so the answer your question i actually don't know the answer i


money damages to collect any sum we claim you owe us that is their arbitration so according to their contract if they were going to seek any money against us in any way they had to first go to the arbitrator and they didn't


obvious one it's sheer speculation that he would ever have he didn't even come close to facing as merely a theoretical concern he had his argument that i made a cost benefit determination that if i could only raise thirty six thousand


actually get the campaign white south here through the contributions coming in through the last six months there is nothing that i know of that calls that into question mr zimmerman didn't like it and he actually won


justice is to be commended for moving forward with its policy from the time of prayer when judge barksdale was on the union to today where they do give hormone therapy but if on the graduated by point i mean i'm i'm interrupting a big skis and that you can get back to your


and companies it's still not material and i think when we look at congress versus rogers which is a good example countries eighty eight riders in eighty four i think that leads us to this conclusion that we want people to go to the f b i as witnesses


their interviews so it created a dichotomy in the investigation which which set of facts is true and which can be supported by the evidence or not so it was a distraction to their investigation


is not a step to decide if the people they're relying on are telling the truth or if there's really something else going on well that's relevant cycling near to a and that perhaps material whether or not you can use these


by his superiors about engaging in protected activity now the city mentions and their brief that mr williams did not put them


don't even establish that it's the affianced personal knowledge except for in the beginning of the declaration where it says it is based off my personal knowledge but then throughout the declarations there's many times where they say that someone else said someone else a


and the penalty here which here is the acceleration of the urn up what's the relation between the two and could the parties have anticipated that and second you have to look at what amount of damages was reasonably calculable


tried to earn through the gross profits the delta between the one point four less a credit and the the cap of the two point one so it truly is an


the severity of the force were used at that time and there was not in fact it was just the opposite like you said they have people sort of tag teaming to come in and do things and people putting on their blackguards come in and get ready to do some damage so the whether


pay the tax on their markup and that the ordinary sampling does not support that if you could be you could have an ordinance are law that may d o t see collect tax but this ordinance


anything in the record regarding that judge go on to your point about supplementing the record we would require a reversal and we have asked for that we were car reversal so that would you and you back to the district court you so you don't have time


and the a t f refused to give it to us so yes they've given us a few things and by the way that exchange those exchanges with us were submitted described ex parte


been raised before this court so i would have to brief the issue and i would have to consult with the prosecutor and i would have to reveal review his judge walters statement ordering you to turn them over in camera did it have any time limitation to


the briefs maybe misstated what judge walters ruled judge walters ruling was in that case and i hope the court is not left with a misimpression that he felt that he had to give the commingling instruction based on this is court's opinion i would like to direct the court's


even though judge walter did overrule the instruction are a did overrule the objection to the prosecutor's comment it's its instruction to the jury was in a sense curative so


interest people hurt their small business owners have a mom and pop small business argument i'm not saying that i agree with that that's their argument i understand your honor but that is a purely economic


so i think his yes i do i do disagree i think that i think that there is no prejudiced of substantial rights as per guard to the rule live in evidence error causing that in the


and he has no prior record and then you have walker that says you know when a defendant wants to testify that's different reopen for a little less sundry things that's a pain in the neck it takes time but the defendant's own words should be given a priority what


screen v h s non special edition right the first release because they haven't done the widescreen non special edition versions right there right it was a


advertising doesn't make you any money because there's not you know people inserting dollar bills into their television limburg this isn't like a loss leader you know giant eagle for a sale this weekend this you know you lose seven hundred send someone pepsi real cheap


i thought i mean they'd only rushed off like that or they rushed the finn plot like real fast i guess i just felt you know and i and i have a feeling i'm going to appreciate this movie much more you know it comes out


seems like facebook was way talk about real stock and restore like yeah real stock interesting it's to get money one but typically that would be when you're getting ready to grow wouldn't it be it seemed like facebook was so is are as if i don't really get here because really


but hangover three is five man of steel a six despicable me a seven and i know lone ranger eight world war z is nine and monsters university is ten i think there are a couple notable


to be the new president of lucasfilm i was over the summer i think you know if even a few months back you realize you're serious this time you really want to get out of it to him the idea was he wanted to get from from what you hear about what he has said so far to the press he's the he's tired


facebook page or didn't have a facebook page and i think that's transitioning now from last couple of years they said they had one or they've had one and it may just be something they're not exposed to anymore they don't want to admit to anymore but


got to where it was about two years ago it was able to shake around a little bit and people didn't get too upset because it was pretty much the only get out there but suddenly it's got all sorts of alternatives and things that are more excuse


surprisingly and it's a service that when you think wow this would be really cool i would love to digitize my collection i would love the bill to buy something and then watch it on the i'm a tablet or on the meter anywhere and not have to sit there


think the ultimate move of it is going to decrease the number of consumers who are really using it i think it eliminates your low end consumer and increases i think the amount of revenue taken from businesses small businesses


and i mean what we know is you know as well as anybody that midnight showing on a thursday or twelve a one showing on a thursday was i've got to be first i got to be there or you know worse yet the first weekend it's there and


with my children in the room kind of a movie's embarrassing and i think with an adult child i think i would watch this with my kids in this one one room over like oh i get a lot of violence and language


for each other vendors and yeah it's going to be at the bottom but well action point is johnny knoxville


i read an article in the weekend it was predicting that rampage did not have enough good buzz around it to even beat it there was a picture that it would not meet the rampage would not win when i won the weekend and then word of mouth was better than they


live action of course not the i'm a week hundred and three million dollars opening weekend exceeded even disney's high expectations for ford or i'm


they solved and now it's kind of the defacto order in place for people and even if they're not going to buy from amazon they're going to amazon to check out the price or find out information on something i guess my concern for


that keeps me going with them even under or behind smart smart speaking of being smart maybe not being smart i know you've been following the area of story if not so aereo is a company


their strategy as far as being forward thinking when i'm just not just reinventing but really responding to super complaints as well i mean think about the split of the industry to have that sixteen dollars versus eight and how


he's walking ok wait is fading it's fading to different angles him walking and weight but not walking i think even continuity was a two thousand one space odyssey was paint that whole beginning


introduced the i pad i pod revitalise themselves kept upgrading then i phone same thing then the i pad same thing and they need another thing and right now it's not happening but this is netflix is i pod you know this kind of energy the funny thing is they're


did you watch it when i was on now it was junk at a time where television was dead going back and seeing it if you watched it since it's some of the best television i've seen that's great i would put it i wouldn't top ten


list look look i want to care even less about the grammys need to respect artistry apparently back is not and beyond say is an artist ok i don't anyway so


do it what they think of it is like cheating yes i mean while it's you just spent hours potentially researching math figuring out what should go on this piece of could you get one sheet of paper and you put anything you want on it is it important is it not important i actually like you said analyzing the information deciding


the day like you bought a walkman and you got to you to present this task this book and then like two thousand four they were suing saying you can have my music for free but it doesn't fourteen here take it how those how the winds have changed the


seems a little smaller than i pad seemed a little bit less and this seems even less again i don't get it i don't get it i mean i understand and are seeing the affliction and interest and


seven year old brain and that's artificial isn't there's no sincerity to this anger or complaining at all it's false and i don't think he's a bad actor he's just


a half hour ago so they must be getting ready to go to sleep for the night thinking of speaking of sleeping not really so of course you know we


plot or trailer or teaser about the new star trek show which i didn't watch it but the people i was discussing with said it looked good the only show movies you can remember were the trailer


they're going to get this was going to come out and everybody will have to have it and they will wait in line i wonder though at some point i'm going to hit at some point yes because and this is why i'm going back to what stage i was a lie back in the archives our shows we've been having this show since maybe


did but it was sort of a hunky hokey not as great well let's do that well let's give her some superpowers so the problem is you've got these twistings on one hollywood starts putting in the comic books saying this comic book story is good but


par with superman for that that's how bad it was yeah it was no point of reference painful if you want superman three you have it you know i thought well you can


world city and this is non negotiable has to be so there had to be some huge high stakes gamble and that was the studio saying that that had to be in the film and again we've seen that kind of film eighty seven thousand times before and it's


the popular character that wasn't good in that movie gating this historical reference where deadpool didn't exist with wolverine didn't exist with gambit but now we'll throw them all together in the past try that out and see if it runs because


obviously cost him the oscar host hosting duties what do you think as far as you know this movie being number one obviously didn't keep too many people way i mean any thoughts as


that's why i brought it it was good it has the death toll running on it you know it's a special feature it's great it's great well i love that what it would there's like to think there's some movie coming out with a special feature or something similar to that


movie theater tickets in the last six years like i mean maybe it as maybe i don't know it seems crazy they list but they had a thing here it was only seven seven you know it's a fifty something right for you to have when they had the


came in for two hours of our work and you know which is worse i have to agree with mr bonner on this oh is why i think that i'm i'm not assuming that these


even in that you know doldrums not heyday like sixty seventies eighties and that fall down and then the rebirth and then the death again and then the rebirth again and then the reinvention of itself in his industry and all through that


what it was it was an interesting thing because the stuff's all samsung stuff but there's a lot of things already like it's inside of google's android services so it's


who did not have a my space account i mean that's that's correct it's not their friend right that that's that's a place where you actually have some growing


is something like the most powerful map service and i was just saying take a different turn in a different direction but we were all right so that's i guess i guess it's something as simple as that or first off coating it is the most


and you go back and look at their facebook page or you know and see or their twitter and see what they've been doing but this was kind of one of the first publicized things where it was real time there are things actually going on in this kind of situation where


you think it's you see that cheap price tag now and you don't fully understand you talk to an extent but also these are people who are looking at one device i want to have everything on my phone right that's true and for that i think it does make sense that we want to carry


i think that honestly look most successful as around the wonder woman range and again it depends on the writing and wonder woman had a lot of great buzz behind it i mean people loved that movie and my own daughter even i put justice league up i think she's like oh


sometimes batman films don't even quite make it they are the cannon fodder to be thrown under the giant boot of marvel movies oh god yes right i'm just talking yeah i'm only talking movies right now but there is no doubt marvel's


space saying reverse the j model and reinstate the verdict your conclusion and your read brief news don't reverse affirm is there something left to be


so i pointed already to the important distinction between a composition and method claim there are various steps that would need to occur to make a cast film for example mixing


so one off payments like relocation allowance or a premium pay are by statute or regulation not included in those calculations mr grover in his briefing today also refers again to five c


prior and that makes this case like felix where there was a reference to other structure in the court said look that means that you know the gasket you can't see the gasket was tangential or like the


harm here is multi faceted first there is in fact a risk of confidential information contamination


us is that we would be under the basic rules of one point seven in dealing with their affiliates and we did not see we were not aware of any overlap any risk of confidential information i did when


that's not what one point seven says is that it's up to the why it did the term and whether under the circumstances a cop that was created such that the affiliate and the original client should be treated as one of the same we didn't see anything that indicated we should do that well it


and when you say and correct all we would have to decide is that that issue is not properly resolved against you and somebody judge her that is true there was no evidence below to support it all of the evidence is directly to the


system finally we're going to say does include the aggregator so that it something broader than the mainstream and self so that they could then have a sub stream down the road but it is a zero sum game every time that they react drew what the computer


employee who even cited to a document appendix forty two thirty which is an e mail from a coke employee distributing the memo to other people and also repeating some of the same things that is in the memo that essentially it is we're ready


clear set of evidence with respect to the company that was responsible for in going to be seeing this through to commercialization which was coca cola that in their opinion there were there were significant issues remaining that made commercialization on


think i don't think they're i am not aware of the case law that says that their title to nominal damages without creating any kind of link between their existence and misappropriation claim it's hard misappropriation assertion and the injury


that the bottom coke is at the top of the court pick one sentence that even if it was a pleasure meeting you last week and the court said they simply cannot support an inference of commercial commitment well of course it doesn't but if you read the rest of the email what you see is that


the i'm quoting from the section their opinion in which the court says busy states the standard to be applied in this setting and there the court is saying identity of the patent it


exactly that because it does determine the the algorithms used and when to use them and so it manages the flow of data in that sense you know those these issues whether the


needy states that are properly designed like it does not leak light and if we go further on down the page seventy mm to the nd full paragraph the st sense we agree with petitioner right to go a few sentences further this is the sense


because in fact it points to the original exhibit a now they'll say well but at the end of the day the exhibit a's match in substance but that doesn't count under his patient law because the only way to find out that


invalidate the claim but the board went further and they made specific findings on the szish this issue they found that the source code in the print specification referred to a single embodiment not two different audiences appendix twenty nine so this idea that there was


to and what is meant by that i'd submit is that they were out directly to the destination and from the initial no doubt in one and figure two on page one hundred and ninety three and the reason we know that is because the sort of go back to question


and eighty there's a passing reference in the specification to a nasa component that brings its resources to the network with the appearance of a dedicated naz device or as part of an integrated


very unstable situation for the contractor they were afraid three of the military committed suicide and you know it was in the market three military officers committed suicide because they were being investigated for fraud


that might be understood as something where the inventors are configuring the signal generator yes the because they're making the config configured too so it's a past tense and we are taking account the past tense


back curious about information systems and and one reading of information of this is that we have an applicant has to be


ok even if that is correct wouldn't the horizontal distance limitation also result in the formants in this case so if you have to get over both of it seems to me to get a firm and so tell me what's wrong with the horizontal distance


of this page that's right there's actually one two three four five six seven eight nine different places where campbell's annual reports attribute the increase in their suv


client purchased were covered by the contract they also did not show that our client was aware of any parts being covered by the one they say you present council says that you saw a contract


or that's a disputed fact the contract does not specify the parts that are covered by the contract it specifies that the parts made with nationwide's tooling are covered by the contract and there's nothing in the record that says that our client was that nationwide ever communicated


actually a lower standard in similar contexts where there's government interference in the market for financial statements and all tie exports and so we're saying why don't they also use that standard for tight imports when we have these u


responsible to someone who can tell them right so simply because someone was a guerrilla in the philippines during the second world war doesn't mean they qualified for either one o seven or this this equity compensation fund and simply because they filled out


to describe what the capsule is its various structure and how it's going to work in that room or don't you i think you do but i think you can do that in a way that doesn't incorporate some of the elements for example when you're talking about outlook


prejudice caused by the st paragraph requirement of punishment in egregious conduct no i do not and he isn't going to do or give his former right i mean that would not be legal in the of the nd part is fine that's correct but unfortunately taking it as a whole it is legal error


when whatever examiner is chosen to give the opinion gives the opinion they should attach their c v to the to the opinion or they should write a few sentences explaining why they are a specialist and i think it


well i think the preservation that we see out of time and i think the question is are i think the preservation that we had to do was to to raise the issue of substantial compliance with the veterans court and and in


no proof as to what that simulator was that the only evidence as to what that simulator was came from our witness because he tried to figure it out he was very knowledgeable in computer simulation and what he did was he took the the


this application correct your honor when for under scripts construction st and foremost i want to say that in looking at the dispute we ask the court to construe little a in terms of give the numerical range a its full value from


then goes on to talk about this parallel method of how you create this by functional molecule for every x there's got to be is the that's the essence of the invention and that is why the course construction of little eight is


perform the same function as a set different afrikaans doing the claims but there is nothing about there being done in the same way or about it being done with the same result so this is a case of an utter lack of proof the other side has nothing beyond


much time on to the extent it's not impermissible in broadening they back right into the very same prior art they were trying to avoid so that is indeed our position and i mean i know that the office hasn't


way this court proceeding cases like content extraction like symantec like the st capital one case where it said if this looks basically like things that humans have done it isn't enough to just take it and set it in an electronic context whether it's


and so i think that's the challenge here is that every time there is in fact a c i p there's something all of else always add and there's nothing wrong in the law that permits somebody to go back to explain to claim the original


understand what is the relationship or that these various guidance documents and that i any guidance that the director explains should bind a p j a commander standing is that he's already done that with things like the one on one


discussing earlier and i don't that we should not really because what if they just don't get rehearing and he never knows why right they don't have to opinion it's been whether or not granting rehearing so they don't have to subject themselves to the misconduct of insubordination by openly indicating they're not following his


because of course after a final written decision issues there could be a pop panel afterwards for the director to review the case there could also be an appeal to this court but more importantly i think


which one of the most important pieces of intrinsic record was left on alice


this appeal that's correct rather like how can that be when he is making an argument that a portion of our precedent should be overturned


dollars we don't have a statutory maximum problem and if there was an appeal waiver were done if there wasn't an appeal waiver then of course we examine the proximate cause issue mean you're putting them both as a statutory maximum the cause ation and the dollars


from the prison cell which will now correct but of course that would be perhaps his are going to be without be your burden to show that while he's in prison he's still involved with people that could get this done except that to do that he would need to


represent fugitives it's not against the law to provide continued representation so long as you don't assist the fugitive from escaping justice


proper for the partnering what happens in this case i'm sorry you say if you find that he did participate in that their evidence and you know you have a very


fact that he's a lawyer is completely irrelevant and it actually was important to his role in the scheme that he was a lawyer because later on when we got to sentencing and as judge rosenthal found his use


that to run concurrently with the two hundred four month sentence on the remaining count has any impact it has it has no impact on the total term of imprisonment but if you were to find venue was


show that they have raised a plausible allegation is that that there was inefficiency in the new york stock exchange with respect to i d r information regarding i they really


and that was based on constitutional limits and was specifically dealing with a criminal statute where the actis radius is an act of intimidation so on the bets in point your honour's under this court's decision in reverse is quarterman a


statutory definition it's the definition that makes the most sense in the context of the particular means of travel that's at issue in the statute which is air travel when you're up in the sky the very fragile environment and it's


heard of one of them is just it's water so the second juror at issue was juror number twenty eight and he was the man who had only on once before he was the only person in the record to be identified as having only flown once before that


i know my issue is narrow but that's what we have great appellate judges i'm not trying to make you feel good about yourself but this is an important issue let me tell you why gary flynn is dead i don't know if he was killed by the cartel but he died in the same car x and that's not the record


because they found in our favor the argument to trial was he was doing this under the as just a ruse in order to get more information about these products over than he could go out and manufacture his own which is exactly what he was doing but what that what he ended


morning as far as the damages go it's high it's difficult to imagine a case where there are more obstacles after obstacle after obstacle with their damages theory


analysis not looking at just a product that's what i'm saying there's no record before you with this macro complete analysis on that so judge fitzwater was absolutely right when he said you didn't do a full


so that probably was of a gross after all in five when we get to the doctor back to the doctor to and i think that's


if you will look at the defendant's reply to the plaintiff's response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and that computers are a way point thirty fourteen and if you look at that reply you will


the case is


outside the kitchen area in a tiled area that employees including management are circulating through it every two to three minutes that's i mean that's an extraordinary


didn't touch on this to have a little bit of time is the undifferentiated damages i think that's just a misunderstanding of what leap he calculated just to be clear there were it would leap he did as he said it should be one foot shoulder


recognized in mandiri versus clifton in one thousand nine hundred four and many other cases that an officer can be mistaken about probable cause but that mistake has to be reasonable and if the mistake is not reasonable then there is no qualified immunity


protects officer flag so that's why i'm asking about the prospective really it seems to me even if you want to call that a meeting because it was not objectively unreasonable because the law was unclear he was unclear the whole city of stafford's


did two parts what he's talking about there again he's talking about how they arrived at the schedule rating piece of the formula that's all he's talking about but the schedule rating that we arrived that is disclosed and was


and then ultimately with got leskie to form singleton and he is using the financial information in the which is all trade secret information in order to solicit investors for both of those entities now the argument was made well that it doesn't matter because it never got


terms of the reasonable royalty issue that he does identify it and describes why he's not applying so it can't be applied here so really the only thing that the jury had to apply was this development


be supported in the record but what i think is happened here is the same problem that judge joey identified in his dissent in the mall an exorcist luna case and that's where the with respect to his colleagues they had determined a


knowledge of facts that were alleged in the affidavit to take detective his cock didn't have that personal information what about cases addressed in the good faith exception where the good faith exception when


cap twelve he's subject to the life sentence regardless so we don't think there's any effect on substantial rights and certainly even if the court were to find that you know point error does not apply you know that there's no need for a recent incident at this time as we've


put out last week somebody missed it arguably could be in but those who take care of them sail these cases that are two decades old don't get in by any stretch and that's the main point


fear of his father it is your the thrust of your argument is grave risk because violence by spousal abuse could also under the law mean risk to child


five attacks so here we are in a hospital where there's already been concessions and if you if you fight back against the idea that this defendant has has committed any of these crimes if you do anything other and ask for mercy


you know somebody merely argument is doesn't even apply in this case under franconian and other cases because the government's free to contract with third parties and we have an independent country with k b r you know i'm sympathetic to this and theory but i am wondering why didn't you


absolutely clear and i submit i think without much controversy it's not clear iran and these are difficult questions and i'd like to start off with the first reason that the rule of orderliness judge all right in the previous argument which will be on the recording


so volume one thirty four the supreme court reporter ages fourteen to fourteen thirteen in the government you could be ripped out of the book like the scene at the beginning of dead poets society just tear it out don't pay attention to that and instead adopt


really review it became a copy this morning so we'll do the twenty eight days but in howard the robbery was a convenience store owner was in the back room sees the defendant come in on the video screen it was an aggravated robbery case because he had a gun he had a mask


yellow light is on i wanted to make a couple of points before


can point the court to this example of shooting a gun and poisoning in no room you know reasonable interpretation would we say that poisoning shooting a gun that's domestically violent as the court was


talk you know it would be you believe you'd be clearly abuse of discretion if you had made an objection or the the lawyer who was there but since they didn't then we analyze it under plain error just like we analyze all these other


anyone suggesting that there was some discussion of kickbacks and off label promotion but frankly that's not enough and the u s o would be you know what what what are we looking for here to be the evidence again assuming that


indeed certain underwriters of lloyd's versus loan that we've given the justices copies i'm going to quote exactly what just a judge cost i just asked where is there extra


factual allegations in the pleading were were true and taken as true and whether or not they were sufficient the district court actually only considered whether the substantiated


the national seating immobility inc that's it's in our brief there's also coghlan the office court marine corps and conflict the court act and specifically stated speaking of the the item that was in in in


to this structure in the case and they both testified that after a brief encounter with keys at the home brown left in a gold piece on pathfinder there


which is terrible i'm not saying that's a good thing by any means by the question is not a practice it's like you don't have the right number of people there or they didn't have certain training about how to avoid deescalate yesternight when you have incidents


the case was investigated the i'm in a straight and disciplinary committee recommended that all three officers be fired then the head of the detentions bureau major brand fred brown terminated all three of these officers


of discretion trials because as i said you start with the record and then the district court gets to decide what else he or she needs but i don't think that it's i don't think that that should be a problem because district courts know how to do


case is over a part of the register issue is this explicit register notion those are independent grounds the means plus function issues however if there is a reversal on the register and story i'm


you by the examiner argument there are a couple of things to note about this argument summary it is a little bit more specific than those summaries are sometimes but it also notes that ne


ninety one that is to be the portion of the examiners explanation in the nerve the examiner first describes their arguments and then in the examiner's response half way down the page on


i don't we just assume for purposes of this argument for the rest of the argument that i will not go behind the district court and decide whether it decided delaware corporate law properly because even if you have a single errant sentence in your brief you didn't meaningfully


here and you can consider that in case all of us come out of the supreme court and in assessing exceptionality assuming there is prevailing party set is that you you should not take into consideration the the nature of the patent ownership


explanation for why it works and that's kind of saying well here's what the artisan should have thought but the fact is and the evidence shows that what the artisans did they is that this isn't going to work the patent office considered all of this evidence


claim we're asking that could mean that there have to has to be other information that you were given before you can locate that in your particular analogy i think you said locker six thirty six or something you have that


to that the legislator or congress's decision of whether or not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right and over felt is not change that result it does not involve federal subsidies instead it questions whether or


judge just as perhaps this panel was bound but at some point somewhere somehow this is going to get reviewed and we believe the appropriate outcome is district court discretion we reinstated fully if there are no the questions are


there is a significant input from your data so why isn't that enough to survive summary judgment because there's absolutely nothing that tells us why that oxidation is happening when you look at that data you see oxidation happening throughout the process not


trying to understand the history to asking that this be incorporated into this judgment that's not how i read that i read that is that these are remaining intact for subsequent appeal if there's ever a forecourt point at which it were relevant to a final


supports that cause of action and failure to do so seems to me to draw a lot of demand what we said we certainly could have if part of the problem with a claim of injunctive relief is that it requires a lot of information


this case from any other case that's a very important thing that trial lawyers do before they go to trial they've proven simplify the case for presentation to the jury and that's very valuable to courts and i think this court should trade very carefully


tallinn nine line for the data that set this data from existing customers conventional intrusion detection systems this provided at the central central database and then analyze these data records


repeal and with the repeal with a regulation repeal we find that we shouldn't apply this methodology to all say well your honor so if the regulation if the


sleep apnea to see that there is in fact a known pathophysiology and a known cause for sleep apnea so it would not qualify why didn't you just say that instead of saying because it's it has a diagnosis well your honor


me and maybe you can focus on that well your honor the record is replete with e mails talking about a veteran's rheumatoid arthritis and it is apparent from a reading of the record that is before the


be used for there was no use for it and we are aware of other than this this one used and this is how they use it in this is how they sold it misses how they market it so that was why it had to be stopped with respect to the knowledge washer


is discussed and is explicitly stated as a as a factual determine what it fair to characterize your argument as follows that even if we the court would find it probable that for the


drawn to anything that has to do with how a human being perceives the cid it has everything to do with how the electronics reacts to the signal and if you look at the smith reference for example the smith reference which


things why does that not naturally mean those two filters have to be part of the module because it's actually the function of the optical filter the very first words in the claim that's what's doing the displaying


and then it goes on in one additional sentence to say when the fixed grading has the form of a face plate it may be etched it may be an edge glass plate and it may be physically combined with


agency's actions and just the ball right to terminate something doesn't mean that you can terminate it and it doesn't matter that you caused the situation you created the problem you did this or that but i haven't heard the


that's not a basis for creating a claim for you you just it it the situation cannot exist or an agency can push a contractor to spend its money for a here and then for any reason whether it's the right reason


were we find this page to await i don't have the actual decision in front of me but he also on hage four fifty one five claimed at five seventy eight also i knew the specific waters that were


but it helps illustrate how those density limitations don't help define objective we bribe sorry visually negligible in this case though those additional limitations and as the expert told us there's lots of different can just considerations when we


specification and then limited the term visually negligible to that example or at least provided some structure within the group within the specification that those orders go in the ark could look to to find


the too at just to wrap that up the two points on the cd milage billeted were there's a procedural defect the board did not even consider the claim language at all as i mentioned it relied on senator schumer


claims require is what the pleasure choir's that pixels were selected to form the one image the pixels we selected form the other image and that there then combined in the composite image that doesn't mean that the same pixel has to be selected for only one image or the other


origin it doesn't matter that they contain cells that are taiwanese in origin it doesn't matter that they were included as subject merchandise which is what the commerce department to term because the negligibility provision applies to


is not true they make it has to subsets of subject merchant defined by geography and defined by the kind of product that's the way that major military provision is applied and that's the way it needs to be a fly here imports from a country of mexico or


disagreement on the question of eligibility or entitlement to charge a fee there is a specific statutory provision that requires the issue of reasonable list at that top to be raised directly to the board the issue of


processing not i think that the distinction becomes clear when you try to interpret input are a signal and the signal that is the intermediate frequency signal mean those are different one is clearly process because the


preferred construction of connecting to connected to refers to being directly or indirectly interacting to interact with in an operative sense not to be physically necessarily touching not necessarily to use your honor your honour's


those because it doesn't always require a specific direct connection link to could be an indirect link but it has been operable link and that's what's missing here there's not a single thing the controller can do to control the valve within that


century thought here i mean they're experts at in our experts and we know when a hard container substantial everybody knows that what suddenly when it turns elastic makes an engineer say i can't figure out that substantially fell because it's elastic now it's made out of latex


novo review and in each instance your arse for those reasons there should be a reversal in total on all the claims on individual and deeper inspection what you will find is that none


intended functionality so the algorithm or the method to describe which divides the world into one input on the one hand and all other inputs on the other gives you a very simple very


that contain different data that is in a different order correct now that he has approximately seven different messages that have a fair amount of data that can be constructed and so for whatever your intended purpose you may select one over


totally different standard for inducement and contributory there by the definition of the fact that there were definitely yes the standards are different but i would agree that the actual knowledge requirement is the same for each you must have knowledge of the patent


erred as a matter of law and construing the claims by reading this coding flexibility requirement into the claims this claim construction in fact of the entire court decision and


logic or rationale for how they concluded evade off shore armor is in sight sound in appearance the same thing as the word armor standing alone i sight sound in appearance and i get the likelihood confusion


i was a professor fry the from mit but he was never made an issue at the examination at any point and nobody contended that it made any difference whatsoever


in the claim it's a very broad claim that's why we're here today and that's why i've inserted it has a sort of this pattern against a number of banks including the banks represented in this proceeding


inextricably intertwined with medicare statutory provisions and reimbursement mechanisms in other words the less developed a bill claims they have to look at those and agree with them the make sure that they are in fact shorts they


really move the case it's already here i've got there's nothing for me to do here we're in the form we want to be in everything's fine the time is run i've got no concerns all the doors are closing around me the last chopper leaves and suddenly we get this


be because your honor the court why don't you do us why didn't you raise that timely and you would say we didn't have to because it's subject matter jurisdiction because the lack of proper pleading to establish jurisdiction


retroactive application it doesn't and so you go to the second part of the land graph analysis which is then does the application of


correct now he was certainly telling people it's as early as six months before they thought he would be called up but that didn't happen his orders didn't get cut until january twenty three or


he presents a high risk of serious illness or death from co the nineteen due to his serious health problems and he presented b o p has been unable to adequately adequately control the spread of the virus thus leaving him


john i'm not suggesting definitively that that's an inconsistent or contradictory but but the judge wants to hear more of this case and yet by denying the plenary injunction


equal protection clause is not strong and the question is whether the gloucester county school board policy providing separate rushed rooms plus single store restrooms for all students serves a governmental interest in protecting the safety and privacy of the students if we get


clearly demonstrate that there was other notice also provided to the to the application whether that be through an oral warning on the record by the immigration judge whether that be through the immigration judge instructing the attorney


known exactly what notices were or were not given i didn't have the prior transcripts of any prior proceedings in this case actually i was sent tapes audiotapes and i didn't have


have a situation where board says we're not going to do this we're not going to use and they just dig in and against any cellphone tower whatsoever but that isn't this this is this is a board that


b is very striking but there's no mention of notices no requirement of employers to provide education on the statute and section ten limits and also the structure of the law as a whole creates what i have described as a


all payment under the un coverage as a nationwide set off provisions do here in your response to change tracks lose question is hypothetical would the seventy five thousand dollars you feel the pain that you are


for purposes of the guidelines at all so we believe that is in the brief i'm perhaps offering a different analogy for the st time today but we certainly have made the argument in the brief that the relevant conduct has to be criminal


the person because it came through the c c s of the income directly to the respondent that argument was rejected by the arbitrator not appeal we don't think it's a good argument we think the operator is right but that's the person argument i don't think that the person on it really can


state stored in the contacts were pleading guilty and we didn't know when we feel that they were going to say that again we did that defense did not know in the record it's very clear that if i'm of the guilty plea the defense was unaware that there was going to be a superseding


controlling at the time of this case the incident in this case the possession of a cell phone would result in a federal criminal charge rendering the statute void for vagueness as applied to such a person and how could he not know


but in our peel we decided not to pursue that because it's irrelevant what he was actually using the phone for what's relevant is that he was chosen out of the thirty five to forty individuals who were also


sense and say well i think so somebody else might not or are we to use the objective standard the ordinary reasonable person is that weapons you know that that is a sign of the reasonable person standard but i think a


definitions were put on the you know the reading glasses and and the court looked at the definitions in the dictionary as well the court looked at everything this is where this is one of those real cases where we have a we have the same judge from the circle case


this clearly was a disposal it was referred to as a disposal by p c s in the underlying case it was found to be a disposal of waste materials by chief judge seymour so that provision also applies


argument i think that no reasonable jury can conclude that governor mcdonnell violated the law but even if you were to disagree with me on that it's altogether possible that the jury did agree with us on the facts but under these instructions the jury still would have been required to


secretary of agriculture gives a speech to us to farmers on u s d a policy even though he clearly has issues of u s d a policy pending before him that's not an official action and if i could offer you another example that wasn't that


monetary terms of his probation and judge o'steen essentially agreed with them and that is why we are here and there are three basic points about north carolina law the judge o'steen missed this is essentially a black


that entire ip must be implemented the entire forty six weeks let me ask you a question about that because i wasn't planning to get a court order stone be transferred to cornerstone in december there are forty six weeks between the transfer


the public who decided they could not supply the services property for this john it's all of that was well i don't know that they ever said that they couldn't offer all the recommendation was to move him because the basement where he was in


but we elected to bring it in federal court for two reasons your honor number one we thought that there may be an issue with respect to having the statute interpreted and we thought that would be a faster track to actually get the statute


but if you if you read the the iteration that the latest iteration the statute your honor and i don't have the executed read to you but it clearly does say that he has to take leave in accordance with employer policy and that is that


in jail but your honor even if he's in jail he has access to this evidence he has access to the ability and the innocence protection act applies to people in jail you can simply ask that this evidence be tested he's had access to this evidence the whole time and he said counsel the whole time


statutes under which mr bello has been convicted have never been applied to a street crime i e a crime where that was committed without a specific awareness of the i p p status of the victim


and that comes down in this case to whether there's notice notice of the status of the person because you don't have any complaint about a statute such as this protecting the american interest your observation in this


discusses a parade of horribles is ten nineteen of clock which says if you're going to sue for a clock violation you've got to do it with in six months of satisfaction and the argument that have been raised by the district


very good reasons not to again ten nineteen the statute of limitations if you're going to sue for a clock violation you've got to do it within six months of satisfaction if their argument is right that the deficiency judgment bar


prisons did all they looked at all of the sentencing statues the application of how sentences are supposed to be run they checked into the kit intent of the federal district court didn't get an answer and did the five


we also by the fact that he was the government must make these do is explore these other alternatives in any event the district court has to make some finding that the other alternatives have been explored i


just parties who are closely aligned with the lawyers it goes to witnesses of the crime and goes to victims of the crime it goes to families of victims and anyone who potentially has information that might be relevant to the case that that was the point where


as i said at the outset that the defendant can be tried fairly in the southern district of west virginia with or without the order that it's under discussion i did you argue that to the district court we did hear i did yes


involving bridges between labor unions and employers in risk the supreme court found that an action under section three zero one was appropriate where the arbitrator's decision was final and binding that this decision is


and fifty five so that's not factually similar to this case and we knowledge that if we were actually similar bit stiff with control d d it doesn't come up much between the two of us and i'm sure mr bragg didn't you know spend as much time on


look to the sentencing guidelines to fix the objective measure of the harm and in a bid rigging case the sentencing guidelines don't look to the damage the provable damage of the bid rigging because that's always impossible to derive with precision


a quote diversionary disposition resulting from a finding or admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere in a judicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under section four a one dollar


no yes but i'm giving you the scenario what if we say it does apply if it does apply then we would be successful in this and that instance as well because in that case you have a clearly different scenario you have a defendant


that's correct but at the time


three additional words that a violent would be a violation of due process to convict him of this now because the stats what lawyers do every all the time in a courtroom to make practical decisions as what they


didn't want to escalate the circumstance and let everybody know he found the gun until he got everybody out of the car and detained them and that was a report that was exactly what you would expect police to do to protect their safety and to protect


the just because the statute doesn't specifically address it it doesn't prevent the court from exercising the essential supervisory authority and i think my reply reply write the history of


has that definition gerrymandered into it if you see what i mean so why should we read it at that very low level that's tied to the facts a prick uni rather than a high level of the sending and receiving the letters she generally is that the


the district court can resolve a dispute a fact regarding exhaustion without having it need to go to a jury that's what we're asking here we recognize that partly because of allegations


pending at the same time in federal court but it didn't say that instead it said filed in or pending in federal court why has that is the district court acknowledged just to counter the fact that one of them lately


have repeatedly said that in this context and again i don't think the government needs to list every single motion i can if i went through them all there would be a whole long list and then tomorrow we would be getting another different kind of motion it's including but not limited to any appeal any motion and


modify later i think the answer is no you and i think it's like you said it's a mandatory minimum and when we think of mandatory minimums we think of something that needs to actually be served i think there are a lot of district judges who would be very happy to hear that the mandatory minimum


motions then the court is also saying that these post sentencing modification motions are different than what happened there are changed circumstances there are conditions prerequisite


want this to be the exception i think this gets back to what i did to the first question i was asked which is about the alvin case and the album case says that if you have a patient we inadequate inadequate process you're not going to have it well


it adopted in an internal guideline calling for decisions within sixty days and spelling out that there how that would work so that's not only send but button adams seems to be


understand who has the burden but you're not suggesting that that cannot be a factor in these cases every courts of appeals have when they address the common law right of access sad that the motives of the party seeking access usually oftentimes


it's already precluded and we're not going to delve into the issue you know i'm so sick and we james has not provided the court with any details on how he was entrapped let alone pointed to any evidence of the alleged entrapment


to determine whether there was a minimum amount of risk of flight or danger to the community in order to hold her for ten days and he did he did do an analysis and he determined because of her uncertain immigration status he would give


unprecedented in rejecting the single authoritative decision statewide authority of the immediate court of florida and substitute its own judgment based on the generic definition which is not applicable in florida and has never been that live in florida but


disagree that the heartland of this of this provision this thirty five b to a one or moment one is a situation where just what i said an employer has an obligation it's ceased but it keeps doing the same work in the same place such as when you know if


was used as critical evidence at trial should have been suppressed because it was seized in violation of th amendment rights this case is i don't want to start by saying this case is


it it mentions all kinds of things that don't seem to be in common use and neglects to mention the single most common we used to vice but i can't disagree that it should have included cell phones and did


lot of other evidence the question is whether this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt did not contribute to the verdict the prosecutors do in the dynamic of trial was necessarily the opposite of that because the prosecutor made


persuasive and there if they're giving you what they're fatwas when they wrote it it's not binding the comment i think it's the actual goal that you look at itself and as i said two years before we entered into this contract


time if you wish your honour's if i may i'll briefly address the issue of that your honor still very interested in which was of course i lost my train of thought happens to


for coverage we're talking about protection for coverage for the purpose of determining the duty to defend based upon the allegations of the complaint we're not talking about the potential for coverage based upon what we learned


down to that or not really i don't believe so i think that his his argument is that the entire application process writ large is unconstitutional that it should be automatic that


trust a piece of paper that says sol was adopted because that might be easier to defraud the government is that where we are well in the biological context it's


mean they're very close to the door i mean the point here being you can't have somebody at the door because that affects traffic i agree with that for part of what you said your honor you absolutely i


effectively cut it off because it or any attempt to have leafleting in the parking lot the i first of all i don't think that would makes it would be reasonable because the safety concerns the defendants prior to this lawsuit


the proceeds of it now i must to warm your heart while i was in so it would be consistent with what you thought the case was when you first that was part of our agreement the not continued fee objections but let me tell you where they get paid per source and key bank


to underscore at the outset of my argument that we think that the dispositive issues in this case the dispositive errors were the district courts finding of sham litigation and the district court's imposition of an unlawful discords mental


other exceptions to prosecution history the stoppel exists the federal circuit has explained repeatedly these patent is always over narrow their claims that's why these doctrines exist to evaluate


deciding whether or not this costume can be copyrighted the location of the head cut out the arm cut out the collar is there the cut outs may be utilitarian in opera tech bubble but that doesn't mean


ensure that there wasn't the federal of local police forces and that's clearly not what's happening here we're not directing how localities spend the funds there still is a lot of flexibility in terms of the bob criminal justice purposes of the grants


did not have a substantive discussion on her prior ruling now because of her quitting it as a motion for reconsideration


very seconds late to a set so that's that's a a big distinction between a real independent contractor and the the workers here if i may i did want to clarify a couple things on the settlement if there's a little bit of


should have the statutory language says shall provide an opportunity for hearing so it should not prohibit it presumably but if we were to conclude that it really wasn't requested or is it your position that whether or not you


only evidence in the record demonstrates that the governments have presently deployed minimal resources and essentially if if that isn't enough then then what we're saying is what appellant is saying is the government has to


the d c circuit acknowledges this in swift there are circumstances such as a problem a court where there would be a need for the court to step in and say dismissal here is not proper but those circumstances everyone agreed that those circumstances are extremely rare


mean isn't that's something i don't think so because i don't think you can assume that he knew that he had withdrawn that request again it was not in a motion to withdraw it was just in a continuance motion he didn't we have no way to know that he actually read at


continuance that we have no way to know if the defendant even knew it was filed so you know we don't know whether this report was in forcing it's one substitution policy was relying on callan ascii simply forgot about this because there's nothing in the record the court never conducted an inquiry


look defense perspective and then because they're biased use it they may have convicted without dulles testimony but that's not the question on kronk three and the fact that they were dirty and it was pointed out is the whole point here you know what if the


good morning to you please the court currently gilbride representing mr nine b only document related to employment that mr noyes signed that had johnson and johnson's name and logo on


it can be in foreign nations or in united states it's it doesn't have a geographic limit but and that's my question is it not correct that if something falls under the federal tort claims act that action can't be brought under the military


be the united states government congress has specifically omitted they do not want to put person exposure a military person out the courts have consistently indicated when it comes to the separation of powers we do not want to overstep


complaint correct that because that person this is the issue we have you on is that correct that is correct all right let me ask a follow up you're familiar with metadata yes ron did you introduce any method data to show that this thing was actually drafted at a timely point in


judge to record with respect to who created this pornography and how did it end up on the hard drive and there was really insufficient evidence in this case that the hard drive on which these files were downloaded was in fact the same hard drive that was in mr miller's laptop


is it possible to distinguish the evidence with respect to the convictions on possession and receipt where the evidence covers receipt as well i think i think to the extent that the evidence covers


statute which created a one year limit for arrest for the kinds of violations here there are three year limits for actions by attorneys general by bureau other parts of the disclosure part of the statute and so when congress created a


years of practice and j g this is the st i've seen a party attempt to run away from a stipulation especially a stipulation that was not only entered on the record but the also on the record


to whether or not there's prejudiced so thinking about it that way it's unlikely that we need the courts intervention necessarily and


practical and emotional support that case is actually not cited will it's from two thousand and two i should have made that note in my own brief ok i discussed it thank you thank you very much thank you counsel the matter


st at this point the case was in the defendant's courts we could have reopened the case but they could have just as easily called those victims back to testify and they would have in those circumstances had the st shot


obstruction of justice enhanced and what way did the court go wrong by referring to math well the math use case actually shows why the court is wrong and the matthews case is the only case published on this particular guideline


sort of special knowledge or information that she was passing on or as you just produced these records without any indication that they came from her as a claims representative at the


could it have been because the variance was denied and i'm sure you're thinking well if he got the variance would you even be here probably nine but i think that the judge definitely


mistakes well then how do you deal with the fact of a of a strict construction with some twenty seven denial i don't agree with it i guess i mean i believe on of are you ok so and then this brings me to ok so that i believe is


consent in this case was involuntary the magistrate the fact finder in this case made clear comprehensive factual findings those factual findings included st that the defendant verbal he consented to the search that the defendant never


whether the defendant was in custody with seizure and that is a problem because those seizure in custody are legally distinct concepts and this court has held in multiple cases that a stop at a checkpoint for a routine immigration


day when you're being investigated for something totally different because the sense that if the focus is on whether or not the defendant understood his mo brando warns yes


waive globally your rights if you don't know what's being investigated and that is a more minor part of this case your honor so in that the truth the real issue is that a confession was allowed to go to a jury that was improperly around


where you have an agent who basically did what he thought he was allowed to and this is supported by the federal law he is supported by the training he received and it's really supported by does tiger's own decision where he said you know i think that there are


be untrue and he did his own declaration which is part of the record where he and i believe i brought it with be here but what he says it's in the three three two of the excerpt of records he says in his kind of paragraphs


it's because she wasn't let me back up part one mr lee was originally charged she was charged with conspiracy to travel for the purposes of transportation transportation for the purposes of prostitution which is a registerable


violation which would have been a three to nine month guideline range she sentenced him to a ten month guideline range under a b violation but this is the other side of point if your first argument is yes rather


capable of of threatening to law enforcement officers and this probation officer was on the receiving end of language that was not quite as explicit certainly didn't leave much room for the imagination as to what you know where to find certainly


revaluation the fan in this case i don't think so not if there was nothing that the defendant did i mean that was that's essentially the allegation that was charged in this case is that he associated with a felon but we don't want out of it that couldn't be


lesser any other questions about the risk hafe issue the other issue there's there are a lot of moving parts in this in this appeal i just address the the


has sided with respect to the state law again we do refer to the marijuana cases in the context of relevance now last year on or has further questions with respect to state seizures oh i do have


should follow it i do believe that the math this court provides clarification of approach it doesn't set forth any new role but mathes is one of the very decisions the robinson court looked at to reexamine


mouth where i object to the proper standard i would submit that's enough your honor and then his next words were it should be beyond a reasonable doubt so at what point was the district court supposed to go oh no he's really saying that i need to apply the six full n c a a factors and


no evidence of that here whatsoever in any way shape or form what seems like you are maybe trying to sweep something senator and appeal waiver on a different case where you i'm sure i didn't follow there's more than one case correct and


disputed i mean i think like when you said you don't contest the voluntariness is as a requirement it seems like you do contest the meaning of voluntariness and so i don't think you really are disputing what happened with the bus ticket and whether he you know


whether the loss took into account the services that you say your client should have been credited with because the agree that the two thousand and fourteen guidelines do apply but there is still this last


of the emulation was unquestionably as a part of the pat down and so i cited a number of cases about the fruit of the poisonous tree doctoring which him is familiar to the court regarding the way in which is discovered and the government hasn't


the lopez court talks about the california legislature specifically enacting the carjacking statute as a crime against the person so if you look at that language in conjunction with what was said about the possible fear that this


does not apply in this case and why's that because we're talking about the value of the assets we're not talking about interpret ing the parties meetings under the contract that there's the


states that's sufficient to be a crime under united states criminal law to be prosecuted in the united states your honor i don't believe that is a crime under united his constitutional laws and i'm asking a different question could there be can see if that were a crime thinking


were what was reported on the tax returns the i r s had a c p a who testified on behalf of the government precisely to that that here's a


instruction was given but in the context of this case in the context of all of the instructions was it needed here and given the level of reliance which is different than in most cases where everything was delegated


process of a vague is there any she's already that that speaks to that kind of situation things come up late and i don't think there's a rule that says the fact that evidence doesn't surface until late so that even the prosecutor doesn't know about it means it can never be


days before trial amongst other things that photograph was included but it wasn't we were told until the trial itself and the effort to introduce that photograph of


need to judge fletcher's question then does the does this argument about her not being in the right state of mind is that those that relate to her that the leading up the files


involved and extend get some more money and it's pointed out it's in the briefs that money was not paid out after the response to those efforts and again


circumstances but without the observation probably the rest on out your truth that i'm not sure that's true i we we would certainly agree this is the most important factor but i think for example it has to be viewed through the lens of the officers training and experience they


s and m images mentioned in the police report were overlooked the nd is that the government pointed out that probations conclusion that two images existed was not out of thin air both of those statements are true and i'll explain why the


were somewhat murky and so we would not oppose that ok i think it actually is easier to get a fix now than later probably isn't it it's probably easier from the sense that it would be more recent in everyone's memories i don't think it would necessarily focus


the unlimited computer monitoring condition requesting that those be remain with instructions because these extend to any device used by the defendant for work or personal purposes whether or not the defendant owns that device which is very problematic and then number


search that is completely against what the warrant a louse and then lastly they say none of the contents of the duplicate originals other than those which may be required for prosecution will be displayed to


attorney had just said judge i'm yelling you haven't advised him about the penalties you need to do that and you had taken care of it right at the trial well your honor the crew was x part of it was during the defendant's motion for a new attorney


there's a waiver waiver not file a notice of appeal for you in that case the supreme court said that the failure to file a notice of appeal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel but was that was that decided on direct


absolutely correct and why would the government have known that that might help your defense because mr meyers had spoken to agents content for any asli at the border checkpoint explaining that he had been at the


determined that it likely arrived in the probable cause once or the agent saw that void in the truck which was covered it did not was not consistent with what a property to a t truck would look like and it looked like contraband would likely be at night or there


tracking it's not capable of creating those chronicled detailed encyclopedic movements the carpenter was worried about what if a city installs these license plate readers on every street corner would that be all encompassing as outlined in


still go after him later in that scenario in writing that they couldn't in this one right that's the that's the whole difference here and so again where were the two sides line up then at sentencing for the district court to make a fact determination is


really was what the government argued and what the court actually did hold on to and the reason for that and then i'll close because i see i'm out of time is that that is the only way we get to a loss here because actually i pointed out in the reply brief


that petition only from sixty four percent but the issues would be the same however that was decided we believe would control of four cases so that dismissal that that's what it became water under the bridge when when the the final decision in the


demand is rarely if ever used and that the accused products are configured to receive the time events value one time remote different structure in continuous mode which is a normal operating mode and therefore intrinsically five can i ask you about the


that because not all functionality is in one window of blanchard again it's the one window and the board then changed what it viewed as window but that didn't change the experts view of what that meant so it's an apprentice to look back based on what happened in the final


view of how you look at the evidence but if you take our position from the beginning that has been our position and that isn't the position that we still have that is consistent throughout that's our view of how blanchard works with respect to a few other points that my


well if my mother were a bus but you have wheels and live in a garage well it's not a bus and the johnson patent doesn't say anything about gateway's or nat or anything like that and that's what the board found that's the that doesn't it's not sclerosis not describe


bit because of the clockspring factors and the analysis that one would put into place where the testing that was going on was not directed towards any aspect of the claims that's the problem that they face with this experimental


and in addition to this that to the description in the application itself also part of that file history of publications that were published by the inventors confirming both the method of making this


quite usual for scientists it was before looking at say some general for looking we should research this for but here of those statements are actually quite clearly in the context actually that paragraph refers to the


are these the facts found that there was a fourteen bill month delay in awarding the sixty percent rating because the v a did not follow seventeen point three three eight two and


the patients bill of rights it makes clear that these are guidelines that were not meant to supplant federal regulations or statutes that govern the claims process there were similar he's relying a lot to get a higher rating it's


never been done before but only you know and that's the main idea to make it an invention it's never going to be an eligible venture depending on time and context that made that maybe stuff