homeless individuals that are chronically homeless on the story they qualify for services they have a state benefits they might be veterans they have access to social security and we were able to connect them with case managers who could get them signed up an absolute receiving services


here in schenectady we think that there's been a needed an opportunity to tell that story of the attractions the things that are making your city a wonderful place to certainly work but also live and so


two family houses and to keep giving money to developers that doesn't take acknowledge that and just simply tear down the houses through the land banks and government money


business is an approval to authorize staff to draft a proposed ordinance to create a parks and recreation district and set for a legislative public hearing at the november fifth two thousand and eighteen regular city commission meeting the next item of unfinished business


that is why the government argued sampson acted to impede the mortgage case by obtaining confidential information for the purpose of witness tampering in that case also the witnesses were paralegal and u


government was asking the judge to sanction a theory that had nothing to do with witness tampering but was just based on trying to get confidential information now they say we should have known before trial that their theory was witness tampering when they didn't even know


four you see that these are so totally separated and then when agent hosey testifies he tries to make it look like they all happened at the same time he juxtaposes those two things if i had those notes and i could show them to the jury i'd rest assured that they would have never


fake bullet but we but we did draw lines around the point where they wanted to admit the paralegal because that was simply too far and we talked about the judge when she talked about that before with the appellant


i guess condition was the right way but he used words like assume and pretty clear unlikely but he was never able to say demonstrably what drugs are being discussed i think then at that point the court is left to speculate to some degree and i think


charged with murder by the feds he was not charged by me with murder by the state even though both of them considered it there were other co defendants in this case who were charged with my they were convicted of murder some pleaded guilty to murder but not angelo so this was a weak


the other thing with that is even if you say ok he had no obligation or he didn't go back and check the testimony which by the way it's only forty five pages it's not like it was one hundred pages you know hearing testimony but he


sufficiently let's say for sixteen months and she gave eighteen you'd be you're making the same argument i think if she gave sixteen if i asked for sixteen and she gave him eighteen i would have talked my client out of going forward with this appeal because


so what am i to think you're not who you purported to be or not continuing to behave in a way that's appropriate now i would guess there's no particular science that would justify eighteen months rather than fifteen or rather than


other way to characterize it they had that right it was a due process right there right to their day in court and they were duped into giving it up by the defendants in this case and it's their authority for such a claim


twenty eight days as a result of the appellant county prosecutor's interference with his arraignment on four charges for which he was arrested without warrant what do you say he was arrested on those


it's a core function of the board's decision making to decide which of these various definitions now floating around in the ether it's actually going to apply and as clear as it may feel that particular


only be found when there is abusive tactical use of the assertion of the privilege and then the waiver of the privilege and that case is a perfect example similar case but he discovery here had


that you're not supposed to allow plaintiffs to challenge government agency action especially in the context of a prostitute discretion policy just by asserting that there is bad faith behind out any have evidence without any allegations without its


and we've consistently in every filing we've filed in this case in every status conference we have that we think that this should be done with motions dismissed to begin with because of the crushing requests that have been imposed on us from the very beginning saying all the documents


tax is included all down the line of the distribution chain until somebody walks into a store and buys one pack of cigarettes and the price includes the tax so now they have paid it and the person that the the money has gone back into the


good morning your honour's david roland for the appellants your honour's this matter does not involve any drug trafficking mean or dogfighting but it doesn't evolve an important


affirmative yes ma'am rebuttal thank you judge essentially the plaintiffs complain that state actors and private parties conspired to deny them equal protection and i will admit your honor i came into this case


they were a participant in a conspiracy for gender based discrimination there is no evidence that there was a conspiracy and the notion or i should say no allegations of a gender conspiracy


for a moment that the individual statements by individual defended are sufficient to get a mcdonnell douglas is a regional thing let's just


surgical procedure she talked about brachial plexus injury that she she attributed she testified i'm reading from the blue brief a page thirty in general nothing that i have been taught has anything to do


the reference was none of the above are wrapped by monna line and that's trent read in context it was very clear that that wasn't the full statement well two points the keyword for the first point the key word there is above so they're specifically pointing investors


basically that that she and hallucinations well that is not the dividing line for determining whether somebody is disabled by mental illness the this court and other courts have said


and and all of these are true but that doesn't render her employable that if so then social security benefits would be restricted to the most profoundly impaired of the of the impaired the


at her treatment he looked at the fact that she very often are certain would not take her psychotropic depressive medication and those were the times when in fact her complaints were worse but overall the examination findings were not


main issue which is necessary to maintain the medi care funding but she said one of the things you have to make sure about is that the histories are more extensive here and that there aren't sensor appropriate she said that wasn't a major problem that i have identified but


on seventy ms dhaliwal explains that she's attended she did it's part of her job to regularly attend these events and there's no record of her ever complaining about them except in this one instance i'm seventy one she says it was incredibly concerning to me


do outside of prison where guns are not available that anything done on the street is done with guns you have brown's own glorification of guns his statements his probation officer when the probation officer mentioned a shooting in the area that if it had


eight i honestly i was just highly intoxicated the court did you do it to affect whether or not you were going to testify and proceeding subsequently not to testify just that i never said if you come to


with those attorneys related to another matter but in that was he was he represented when he filed objections the first time yes your honor and the second time he was present correct his attorneys at herrick feinstein had


doesn't it regardless of who actually executed such bomb so this is either this is in the present tense and therefore it would seem to cover future but


deadline and what we were trying to do was just have a sufficient amount of time to set forth our objections to the court within the confines of the fourteen day provision this is a case that has been going on for two years and we would respectfully submit that


the that is counsel didn't review the credible fear interview with him as well but going back to your question your honor again what the argument would be if mr hussein was


his testimony that it was it was reviewed with him and it was true and correct i would think that if he understood it in an up to say it was true and correct he would say well it's


said you should do this you shouldn't do this i'm worried about it i'm not worried about it the request is for the documents that those people considered and those documents could be deliberative documents i


for denying a stay is moot then why isn't the next step to go back to the district court in argue about whatever other reasons there might be for granting us a stay or denying a


secretary do both referred to certain costs and burdens and ministered of complexities cited as part of their litigation risk analysis as your honor noted there is some component of costs and burdens and complexities that it's going to be


that sandy nobody knew sandy was going to actually take the path it did on wednesday before the storm so the they made the agreement and it was the agreement to bring the boat over for


we looked at their coverage this is what the fun does all the time look at our coverage their coverage figured out what we would have paid what they would have paid calculated and said it before the judge but we also pointed out that there was no case or controversy


outright at the district court actually all five were dismissed on the first go around actually met mrs to tesco got many more services for her illness for her condition because of


up at all may or may not have to say something about if you are right about what constitutes standing about whether he noticed the text and suffered an injury from it and the problem that you've got it's i thought the


article three standing in particular the supreme court says that the requirements for standing are not mere pleading requirements sure at the pleading stage the usual rule applies but later stages of litigation you have to present evidence


that home page that they did not know that they were probably going to be accessing child pornography and so the the point of the government is it was not an intentional misrepresentation to the magistrate judge it was a change that took


materially different your honor why not in that case the guy comes to the united states with a gun and is basically turned away at the border so he's here and there in the ninth circuit said the statute does not say it's a crime


himself in this kind of limbo where there's no way to get them out the release they get is on parole now the class of people that your honor was alluding to with another question you know the people who perhaps sneak in they're caught they're put into removal proceedings and they get bond in


grows that look at nasser i think that's probably right but that but the supreme court made it clear that if the language of the governing statute calls for a different standard we don't even get to that other analysis


column and has to deal with those people on a contractual basis if it said i we're only going to deal with white collar us because this is we have freedom of the press and we're going to we're going to run the columns of


it did take seems like he took a look at each chunk of the case and tried to figure out the most efficient way to resolve it and in so doing and looks like there's a lot of well


the eighty five y warranty and the language is clear there that wording to any owner that's the correct word to any owner and i also submit that you can take that same language from that warrantied to try to help define what owner means in twenty nine


court below that the both warranties were future performance warranties under the cal commercial code twenty seven twenty five subject subsection two and what that provision provides essential is if the warranty provides for future


the temporary use permits are for example are one one one two three three four five eleven twenty seven eleven twenty eight


then the shock top blue moon and michelob ultra permits that were revoked or not issued were in may and if i could just briefly address a couple of the the items that counsel referred


five separate oral arguments and over twelve briefs on this particular issue they have actually had an opportunity to submit evidence they did and the district court at one time re man did the proceedings to the special master specifically to


i think it's i think you're not allowed to be down there i imagine a police officer would just wait out there on the freeway for a police officer to come by having a patrol officer look over if someone could walk off the freeway or something like that that's suppose a person


two specifically says that it is discrimination to that minister your program in a way that denies disability persons as well as with an equal access he indicated it was not to place fault it's the independent contractor out there on the freeway


case halley case the whole series of case law establishes that it's not the job of a federal judge to under the guise of an and i trust lawsuit to arbitrate these


addressed only by treaty congress doesn't have the power to enact a statute none that i'm aware of your own mouth so tell you that this argument comes up in a context i'm likely more familiar with the nobody else in the room because hawaii was annexed


when you have cancer and you need medical treatment one of the accommodations is to allow you time off from work to get your medical treatment is that was it ever the case that the need for future treatment was more than


and once she submitted that claim she withdrew it mediately after and why would that be she said she didn't want to have the hassle well it certainly has been effective


the issue is has congress authorized us to apply this particular statute beyond our borders it hasn't in this case now i do want to get briefly to the summary judgment


still is position or not but you might want to comment on that short so your honor i think that this court recently and i put that argument to rest and how that you know nothing in cocoa has changed this court's prior opinions that


mean that every limited partnership interest is a security for example castle just conceded to the court in some instances easy we found if you don't have interest rates of forty five percent well that would be an entirely different case for


christie had been expelled as well as a separate statement of undisputed facts actually that mr christie had been expelled from the partnership that was even recognized by mr pearson who is who is who is bringing that action back in two thousand to


with respect to third parties who want to see a final judgment that specifically incorporates what those findings are but it's our view that it's that the declaratory relief has been addressed in a final order of the court it just needs to be specifically incorporated into the


here today representing monster energy company your honour's this court should affirm the judgment of the district court granting monsters petition to confirm the arbitration award against olympic eagle and denying olympic eagles cross petition to vacate the


had an economic interest in jams and our submission is economic interests is a broader disclosure the problem with requiring specific disclosures is that it's never enough and that call comes into play with one of the other points


least that was certainly appropriate for a jury to find but here we have watched the video and they're shouting shouting shouting to stop doesn't stop he continues to try to extricate his vehicle why was it unreasonable for


did allege a loss in value but i think kwikset and you know who is actually stand for something very important and this comes out in some of the later case like bauer kwikset explains and i'd like to just read a quote this is from three


sold at full price i understand what i said then that would be very different case and then i'd agree there be no misrepresentation there be no reliance there being no standing this is that's very similar to this case except for the fact that they did make a representation that was an independent doctor


arguments were entirely speculative and in some cases entirely unsupported by the record and here i would then just briefly go on to the last point which is that even if the titian or even if this court finds petitioner can get through that prejudice gateway to the court of appeal found that was dispositive


and ten than it would have been one thousand and five by the record of trial what we know with anything is that the trial became more difficult for the prosecution to prove after twenty five years they've had this additional statement which is important but other than that the evidence was pretty much


and one could imagine that twenty five years earlier prior to this long period being together her testimony may have been more helpful i think it's reasonable to assume it would have been and my point of bringing that up is only to say that petitioner cannot really show in any concrete way that the


found no arguable issues it absolutely could not have been prejudicial not to raise those issues and additionally it could have been deficient performance to failing for failing to raise an issue that wasn't even considered arguable by the court that would have reviewed it if there are no further


issue i think they're saying no it's not close enough well with the yes the issues will all be the same if the grandfathering is still the same in order to qualify for grandfathering they have to argue that they have a project permit


if you look at it that way and you try to give meaning to the entirety of the document document i think that's how you can get there and there are any other sections of the enrollment agreement other than the arbitration clause that we shed some light on the interaction of


causes of action what the supreme court did was look at the advisory committees notes the one nine hundred sixty three notes one rule fifty six he was revised and what they said was that well fifty


would be for the intervenors council to intervene in additional told wron who do have a personal stake and i am concerned that the current interveners


there's an appropriate place for them to go to me that that is exactly the kind of issue that we can raise with the independent monitor part of the consent decree includes a


attention how do we know that the way that we know that is that they did nothing as the sequoia fund became thirty two percent concentrated in one stock it was this would have been obvious to a casual observer independent research directors of the


his speech could be sanctioned under a more tailored regulation is is frankly in opposite to the question before the court


but he mr turner asked for a loan he didn't specify the purpose other than for investment in instructed that it be made out in a cashier's check in a certain way mr turner mr said gave it to turner


procedures nor was there any follow up as to the basis of his own individual subjective belief as to whether it was a countywide policy there was no information follow up on that so it is our position is even made be liable individually would not get


term loan and he actually went to the bank and tried to say who took this money out of my he walk account and was told by the bank we can't tell you because the account is closed and he told deputy dearly that when


examine the legislative history of the terminations prevailing party for purposes of fees to be made is to be made without reference to success or failure of non contract claims it further head said the words quote shall be entitled


victory on a contract claim there is no comparison and you do not take into account any other victories in the case on non contractual claims on tort claims under civil code seven hundred and seventeen the only thing you look at is the


district court made a factual finding that the trust in turn i'm sorry the mr mr wasserman the trial attorney when he made the demand to the trust attorney he did not do it out of his own self interest rather mr


nov seventeenth two thousand and ten this was discovered about two and a half years later when she filed a lawsuit against her employer and her manager the bankruptcy was reopened in two thousand and fourteen the


occurred post february twenty three two thousand and eleven so the district court in its four bullet points saying disability a national word origin discrimination etc etc etc is saying that those are in as pled in the


early so how do you construe it merely and read it into the exclusion how would i really exclusion with this narrow interpretation that you're suggesting applies to the term arising out


ip exclusion and it seems like this case really boils down to clean three indeed his complaint


district then she changed her testimony said yeah that program fusion that the parents want that sounds good and then later when the parrot acknowledged during the hearing that the parent wants the child in great knack and that the core classes were sufficient for the child and great act then she


gun the parties agreed and the court agreed that they were going to consider we were going to consider the oral communications because there was a substantial issue about whether or not those were all communications could have been used since


asking for further hearings on on the matters i don't you know we we weren't again as i understood the procedure and i think it's in the circuits case law that when there when material is subjected


who admits that he indeed partied regularly and in fact that it's important that we look at what he said about that which is i would be god darn shocked if people didn't know i was partying pretty hard if we disagree with you if we were to disagree with you that the


that goes in line with one of the circuit cases where it talks about the fact that the person was induced across the board could you answer judge is actor director involved yes according to that i believe that's the case is the the valdez


just enormous quantities of drugs he was moving we nobody could move these quantities


followed right by the fact that there was a material event and to top that all off the the tipper himself testified at trial that in fact he had shared the source of the information whitman and gopher


recently there is an exception for that when we're talking about threshold questions of who is entitled to sue sometimes it's called statutory standing it's an ambiguous term people like that term but the supreme court does say threshold issues you have the discretion to


constellation and all those factors he also talked to the victims of the first offense as well as bronx county district attorney's office bronx family court and other individuals involved


procedural due process protections in either period in the first period again even assuming that an emergency warranted removing doe from his home without a pretty desperate patient hearing the parole officers undoubtedly were required to provide the family with a


the well because we both because we relied on kerry and heck and wallace and when you rely on those cases well we lie on that because the case law is clear that you are too to determine when a federal civil rights claim accrues you


has to be a reasonable probability not a possibility not a remote possibility that the requested language would have affected the outcome of the trial there is no such possibility here let's start with the fact that the jury by convicting


good morning your honor warning you please the court the rangoli roof on behalf of the


three because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence giving rise to an entrance of discrimination nor did the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to establish that d c s actions were not due to his deficient performance


october of no no i did not not in october of two thousand and sixteen and when we had a conversation with the court in january of two thousand and seventeen at that time i still do not know who the individuals were both of the parties were in the same set of


qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage as this court held in barnett and mckenna a motion to dismiss is a mismatch for qualified immunity and almost always a bad ground for dismissal and that is because


we asked down below there mr harris clemens said show us a distinct document showing more than certificates from eva's bank records boards of directors memberships things like that mr late


and i'm also having difficulty understanding why with respect to what i claim was given the breadth of the language about investigation or inquiry or and also with respect to the warranty which is said awareness


was close but hasn't been filed yet then patriarch tried to do something with a warning language and access rejected and they said since we are simply using our access policy we wanted to be clear in the


employees and you issue a subpoena to one of them was nothing to do with the matter at all that that now triggers a claim under the policy and what's more that i would be clear in this investigation means a formal civil criminal administrative


an agreement governing that shows transactions in italy this that does not confer jurisdiction in new york simply because the plaintiffs located here was


off the ground by the way so this was all prospective if just by downloading information and sending an email a website confirms jurisdiction i'm hard pressed to think of a website that doesn't


points among the things mentioned by mr reface this morning is his concern with regard to sue sponte dismissal on the grounds of statute of limitations and this court specifically addressed that issue during the priority


cases where the plaintiffs did not say you are experiencing or affecting one of our markets in one of those cases that they actually make allegations with respect to the fourth factor we have the court the supreme court has said you must consider all four factors


that's listed if you look at the second amendment compliant that some paragraph ten now we don't list which one of those in particular was not paid because they don't work like that they were on a payment application they just the


numbers here that i propose what's very interesting there's a lot of detail a lot of what i'm trying to figure out is is six seventy seven alleged deficient what is the


by the wrong with the wrong purpose but that doesn't deny them qualified immunity nor does it take it outside the scope of their employment and i guess i'd say i understand the course point i do i mean our point of employment is not only that it was on a form that he rode on duty he


in the district court then you can make any over arguments those vets mean that you could bring in additional evidence as to social group it sounds


bankruptcy code we respectfully submit is the initial transfer there's no reason to chase the money unless you're able to say that the money is in appropriately in someone else's hands yes rather and so the substantive reason why you're entitled to the


can be used to compensate the customers of a failed broker dealer well that's seventy eight triple h and it's mentioned it's page twenty six of septics brief now even aside from sip of the supreme court recently decided a case called merit management and reminded


there are actions by different plaintiffs that involve the same ultimate assets with fairfield the problem is completely obviated by the settlement agreement and it by the way mr maloney referred to it as collusive this court has rejected that directly


have relied upon that since he as is conceded in the second ended complaint knew that purportedly that the free trade zone had not commissioned the report and there's nothing in the


not be restored if there are other assets should not be restored if there's other assets here they they knew there were they they knew the circumstances of the case and if that were the fact that they couldn't do that then you know the judgment


rules we didn't agree we never agreed to to restore the money and i appreciate that you're under that and that is an avenue that we would like to wear it to have addressed vacating the the forfeiture


that money would have to the government would do a writ of execution as it did and try and get that money from the feldman's that's what that's what the consequences you were after they you wanted so your client actually paid first of all your client


good morning your honour's may please the court my name is tiffany only and i represent the united states judge labout i think you have the crux of why why we're here the only reason why we're here is because dr feldman does not want to pay out of his own pot


official who points out that most of nablus is work is public sector work which is essentially required to be done by union contractors other union contractors will pick up the slack to the extent they don't do it this is not a situation where a factory would close there's a


baked into the statute of twenty five or twenty three he never i mean what evidence is there that he had the intent to house with a twelve to fifteen year old well your honor i think we're getting one step ahead of ourselves because


i am not aware of any cases from this honorable court which squarely addressed that issue and decided i do believe there have been a number of cases where it noted


bringing someone who lacks any nexus to this country here applies no matter what kind of vessel they were on they were outside of our borders they did not come here and submit to our laws they are not a national of this nation and so i think that it is consistent and the


not completed the qualification process yet the mistake was beginning to use the diagnostic for two years before that qualification process now mr loucks has testified that if this were brought to him he would have never signed off so we


good morning ma'am please the court my name is critical same from when soviet gelman and i represent los alamos national security and i perceive the court's initial question as to whether there's evidence that los alamos did not follow the rules


that is absolutely untrue there's no evidence of it ever being fully qualified ever they may want to say we considered it to be fully qualified even though we didn't it was never fully qualified the university of rochester


do it at the three other centers as well the nepotism meeting was called for by the department of of the aging because there had been a complaint that mrs inside who was working a full thirty five hour week at one of the centers there


federal assistance program operated how that program was structured and none of these questions are legal questions that are set in some sort of statutory stone these are fact based


always sent to a public phone and then the only time a call comes it's a communications are going to army is is when it's when it's going to an ip pipe is when it's coming from a public phone and when it comes from a public phone that's not already ip converted


and issue here is how court interpreted the regulations and applied them to those facts but the last wasn't two thousand and two and at that point there was a reasonable prospect of recovery right though the loss was in two


claim from which it depends instances of improper in dependant such as spies or such a small to layer stretch such as this case of her infrequently but when they do what the defendant has to advocate for is a finding of invalidity


places function format so i think here it's one of those cases where it's not used in these because there is a very straightforward operation and and defend it submitted a supplemental case


had by my count three or four different arguments about what consignment means but we know what does it mean traditional consignment idea where you take a product put it in the hands of an agent


check if i can take a step back for senate here if years the problem for me is it's clear that there was a practice of doing something maybe more than once more check but it's also clear you didn't enforce this practice


disclosed that and with respect to the reply brief what the board said was that to the extent that in the reply for the first time that the same son had offered an alternative that you really


activities and bringing suit so mr saxon is about as far as ai is about as far as you could find from someone who was you know led down the path in fact he was the one leading others down this path of


goes to the fact that we're solving a problem thank


three of forty what they heard teaches is that the control channel is transmitted at all times continuously now control messages would be put into the appropriate time slots as the control channel is being transmitted the data channel is


that his argument doesn't necessarily take this to the point where the primary and secondary have the same effect of i think that is his argument that because of the happenstance of the new claim being filed while he had an old


don't disagree and the violation of the violation here the question is what's the substantial prejudice of the violation generates and then this court pointed to that the delay between the request notice of the request and


c would not come into play erskin you would not be attacking the one nine hundred eighty three decision three point one five six c is not a collateral attack on the one nine hundred eighty three decision it is a


appeal the board's decision that usaca anticipates fundamentally misapprehend of this court's precedent in the kennametal versus ingersoll case and understood it to mean that it can import a limitation that was entirely missing from the reference into the reference to


if you're going to hit the nail on the head when you start off by talking about whether or not the concept of resilience was at issue in the proceedings below the question was not raised below and was


the broad category simple substitution of one element in the prior art for another application of a known technique or piece of prior art ready for improvement and ultimately a predictable use of elements and prior art according to their established functions


it would not be a reasonable construction just find the limitation of satisfied with something that only asked for registration information regardless of its accuracy you have to understand the context of that we need when they have the submit appeal in this


just as well if you think of kids at a playground you've got the ball pits full of balls the kids jump into those balls are they jumping inside of those balls you know they're jumping into a group big the same if you break up a pile of leaves and the kids jump into those leaves their job they're going


functioning in their conventional managed by the information to use or which is we think not accurate with respect to last year's client for example there's no evidence that the combination of components


coming in asking this court to take jurisdiction over a separate ministry of proceeding with burdens on them to show more than just a hypothetical part in this concern that maybe there's some other but they have no concern about big sued for infringement that was the problem


construct does not show possession of the specific disclosure of a summation algorithm to satisfy written description requirement for a narrow claim limitation that includes explicitly a summation algorithm one of skill in the art that


conversion or publication what is set forth in the claim with specificity is this either means for identifying or identifying step that relates to the security scheme i also think under this court's precedent the court can look


eliminated in the interference context difficult questions which brings me to an even tougher question what in the world is the office doing in this case the petitioner withdrew


board says as i pointed you to the the board specifically looks at your entire petition and our declaration says we're convinced that by a preponderance of the evidence the petitioner has proven its case and then goes on to recount arguments and to


he's the one who has that information not the patent and trademark office that's why it's his obligation to come forward and set forth some basis on which that north carolina decision should not be imposed in the patent


and you give information and guidance to the public as to how to make that composition which is what we have in examples then that is the essence of patentability as


eighty of the m p p does not mention this waiver it just gives the rule and it doesn't say anything about that and tell it waves it doesn't have that statement that they relied on in their previously


sorry that's not the relevant question and i guess that's what i was that's my follow up question what relevance is that it when it comes to a one of two in trying to figure out what how big of a genus does that


they were constructing so would not have been worthless it was important work in fact it was it was it was completed by a fall and contractor support has no further questions and my


that into parts yes if that's ok first of all i think the issue is whether the devices right because the board said that the device here could be made up of two things in combination working ok ok but those two things then have to be honored in the back


for what it says is that at least a three way way so you're saying that you could have seven packages and then trucking one would have the monitor and one could have the sensor and those would all be covered i would say that the board's


opportunities is there anything in the record that specifies that that she applied for a different position and wasn't able to get it because she didn't do the right amount the right kind of work


came back in november of two thousand and two and there's a letter in effect every look at every yesterday there's a letter from the navy's attorney relative to a conversation that they that she was having with


it this court's precedent does not require such a search and and whether the burning this mat is not measured by what type of evidence conceivably may have been juice in looking at whether that's a given or it's measured by what


down no i think always it controls what was he certainly that's what we're asking you to do we're asking you to do exactly that look at them the right because that really the reason why we look at the merits of that case was because we decided that to do so


response to be looking at the limitations that are in the claims i mean they have to live with them rise or fall on them for purposes of infringement but you're going to have to live with them for purposes of us as to when those are the limitations in the claims those are your honor but if


have to understand what the term pretty means in this statute what i think that the upshot of taylor and i could go through the other you know the other various standards but i think the point is that with regard to privity in the in the particular circumstances of this statute


institution decision and refusing to mention it all and a final decision could insulated from or hear well i guess i guess just choose what perhaps the reason that i'm giving the answer that i am that you're reacting to is that we have here far


was if you answered no to a question to identify which alleged trade secrets are in fact secret i'm sorry the one did raytheon prove by a preponderance of evidence that indigo misappropriated one or more of the secrets that was the


line nine i'm sorry on line nine he's talking about his prior employment before the relevant period at a company called i c c and says let's talk about that period did you have any experience with a sequential vacuum bake yes absolutely and what was


well i knew you could you could flip that around and said we were we had to if you could you can't segregated then we're entitled to fees and that is the law in some states but i get i think these are all questions for the broad discretion of the district court the district or very well might not say you get all of it


under that understanding isn't there some part of the device which judged referred to as parts twenty and sixteen there are some small part that overlaps there that one that you're referring to


only do we have this contact sort of on the sides but there's the possibility of disclosure moroni that you would have contact you know kind of in the top as well because you do have this hollow


here but he's just making an argument to support his object and i mean that's fair game he doesn't he wouldn't have to state that is an issue it's an argument to show the board ok i mean look obviously we might not apply that argument but


they had begun getting the networking working hardware software integration i think that's not materially disputed but can you speak to the finding by the board that the control access


every strict product liability case requires expert testimony it was because of this testimony that the northern district of illinois to the cited that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied


had asked for what was customary granted granted to the senior she deemed yourself a senior clerk as opposed to the junior clerk but there was no formal office policy with regard to that was or that is true she was relying on the cousin


be dismissed as a matter of law if the alleged injury does not fall within the narrow parameters of section eleven we would submit that the evidence here presented the medical evidence takes this case out of the grave injury


announced breach in the newspapers he terminated performance and by june th three weeks after performance was do originally june th he commenced a lawsuit no parties allowed to do that a


your honor the this case is replete with proof failures and questions of fact as to what occurred in the in the incident


pretty well to the full briefing and certainly you're prepared to make that argument at least orally in front of us how quickly can you have a brief filed by the middle of next week how quickly can the government respond


denying guy goes motion to compel arbitration initially the arbitration clause was not voluntary the conclusion that it was voluntary was clearly erroneous the court focused on the word may in in


probable cause anymore the fourth time you know the famous facts or the she doesn't even tell the truth to the child we learned this during discovery she says to the child when there's a knock on the one way window your mom's out there


colby told you that the players in the original scenario did what they did to protect the child having to testify at the preliminary hearing i think that speculation afterwards i don't think that we conclude that that's why they did it then


legitimate concerns potentially about drugs coming into the site or leaving the site so what why that doesn't undermine any of that give some basis potentially for presuming that


think the the arbitrator was decision should be upheld that certified a class that included absent class members first the arbitrator acted within her scope of authority in certifying a class of


her but every but there but in this case the admissibility issues and the fact that the nobody from the dio


mobs or people that wish to attack question and that's an important point here we're looking at the record evidence that indicates that there was a rise an increase in intensity of the condition when i would do if you seemed to begin with your


but even if we are required to submit an application for relief this is a case where mr thompson told where that he has he never insisted on including an application in previous motions to reopen filed in


the extent of the copying was consistent with the rule the castle rock ruling quoting campbell talking about whether there was more than necessary that was copied for the purpose in character of


took over the market from him but the confusion is because he's still a part of the hip hop community in fact we were just talking about him being at webster hall and the music was going and the tempos


specific and now it's is where you look at more than just the sound she just did what it seemed to be and are all just listening and so she was until she made the determination and we thought that it would be a more


and sixteen now again it was filed in june so it doesn't speak to the present and and it doesn't it also may not have the financial resources sufficient to satisfy its payment obligations it did say that about about jam


exclusion and specifically during the hearing the court stated you haven't gone into enough detail to remove it from the exclusions that seemingly apply on their face


is the physical loss and the court ruled well that's not a physical alteration of property you could argue that's a cause of losses it's excluded and so if you don't require more than just saying we had a direct physical loss or you don't require more than just saying property damage to part a b and


well i think different than a tree you know i was telling my clerks homeowners don't always wonder they're sitting there in the middle of night wondering whether they're covered or not and i remember sitting through an ice storm in one


defects it demanded more money than it was entitle to but even rejected offers compromised voluntary offers by our right to help alleviate his cashflow problems for seven months after i tried to work in good faith with


actually a motion involved an appeal that was filed in late october on october seventeenth and the court actually heard oral argument on it on october eighteenth very next day and then rendered a decision


honor i would respectfully disagree with your reading of nick barnett because mick barnett specifically recognizes that there's a twofold purpose of the overall statutory scheme one is one one small


proceeding so clearly i think the judge arabs should have at least answered that question on the record on the record it was never answered then apply immunity according to harlow versus fitzgerald if you want to do that but you can't leverage immunity and then say


arbitration agreement itself because his choice is because the choice in a bilateral contract is whether or not he has the right to refuse with respect to rise


put forward that argument is the only question here is whether it somehow violates the constitution to enforce a private agreement to arbitration and i would submit your honour's this court can decide this case on a relatively narrow and simple basis which


security officer yes your honor and with divorced from the fact i'm saying that that's true and then you know i'll get into the factual portion and the vagueness portion as well but yes your honor i am saying that an i'm not alone in saying that certainly the court said that in


clause i think that there is there is an argument here that we would like to proffer to the court that in the contract there was a obligation on the municipality to continue their payments


found the civil service thought section two hundred dollars at sec that's where their company that's where that comes from and perhaps even more importantly the contract provision requires the writing benefit to be specifically not specifically covered by the contract it's


rate provided you m s a reduce your fees to me and that was the arrangement she then had to invest in a nd all whether vehicle to drive one hundred miles in the winter each way and she invested in a nd apartment in


yes where is that it's as far as i know it's it's been the motion has been submitted and hasn't been acted upon i can check out on the bottom there is that where is that's that's before the board of immigration appeals we can check that what's the docket


intention in the event the new jersey state is dissolved the circumstance would be different your honor because right now he has already received a bag and baggage letter so so what i do i'm just i'm just trying to stand what you planned to do in order to


ragbir can return to the united states if he is removed i'm sorry you never representation that he can come back or cannot come back but he can come back your honor we have not made that representation here i'm still not sure he's


judgment was the fault judgment was entered for discovery violations your right so that was a sanction it wasn't litigated it was not litigated but it was a sanction it was a discovery sanction yes you're our account climb the opportunity


the judge's shoes that what we have said is this is the compare a case we do not consider what weight we would ourselves have given a particular factor where either we consider whether the factor as explained by the district court can bear


voluntarily dismiss that surviving claim and take this appeal immediately so there's no surviving claim out of that search at the one hundred ninth precinct could you step aside from the qualified immunity question for a minute and


to execute this limitation liability clause they didn't know anything about the limitation a liability clause in and furthermore flow serve new based on the scoping meaning that needed express authority for all those


court erred when if them mr clinton could be a career offender as the instant offense conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine under section titled twenty one dollars


mr williams criminal history is summary pages thirty four to thirty four and i would just note that a lot of the information here is drawn from the government's sentencing submissions where both of


decision sent us that there must be this specific finding on the record by the judge that the judge has determined that shackling was necessary as a last resort in other words


by the person who administered the plan he's entitled to take more he can claim multiple sets from multiple who are saying that the person who fired him knew that these were falls that's you're really


the viable claims brown stated in her complaint nd for any claims for which there is an arguable basis in her complaint either factually or legally rather than dismissal prior to service on defendants this court should remain and for the


had been offered just shortly before trying that happens all the time people turn down plea agreements and then they get right up to the precipice of trial and then they say wow i don't want to go to trial and there's no more offer and you plead as they used to say why do you think that that's


counsel specifically to address these issues because of a breakdown in their relationship and then replacement counsel had to be appointed in order to actually get caught up on the record and make the motion with respect to the government's claims of prejudice yes they have claimed that one of their witnesses may be


turning to the first issue the government acknowledges in its response for if that the court had not accepted mr daly on's guilty plea at the point at which he asked that the case be set for trial


said those are going to come in and so at that point it's sort of devolved down to a result down to this is a sentencing question and at that point there was conferring between mr hudson and his client


to decide where they wanted to exercise his trial right or whether he wanted to persist in his guilty plea it's it's an unusual record i don't believe i ever read a record so many times and each time i read it it's it's almost like it's a pal obsessed i find something else


in there that i didn't i didn't fully comprehend before but i think that this circumstance is not unusual i don't think it's unusual for a district court to have a defendant who is pled guilty who comes in and waffles


not require reasons ocean the reasonable suspicion occurs when he looks at it what did he observe click and ship labels ok there's already been testimony that said click and ship labels will allow any individual to come up with a fictitious name corporation


him water and as you just said they put him in a wheelchair to bring him out there and they were in the process of putting weaker restraints on him so when you look at all that conduct sure in retrospect they should have done what they should have what they should have let him go to a doctor we all know that now


the fact that you have not if you don't get qualified immunity on the pleadings you can still get it on rule fifty six right your honor your right narrowly tailored discovery as to the issue of qualified


certifications saying that the financial statements accurately reflected wholefoods financial condition and also saying that they were given they were designed their internal control were designed to give them material make sure they


is that a district court had already held that it was not enough that justice die as his belief that that hayne was untruthful was was not enough to constitute a factual predicate


let's keep in mind that that product doesn't exist but if there is a requirement for employee dishonesty insurance the bank complied with it and guess what it purchased the gold standard on the market there's not a better policy available in the united


would be that twenty one twelve would be the answer we didn't move on twenty one twelve because our position is that the d c circuit is the exclusive in you but in terms of judge on looking for an answer in the statute all i can point to today is that the clean air act specifies where petitions


thousand dollars christopher hitchens is a lawyer his wife priscilla is apparently some kind of business woman so these were not unsophisticated taxpayers date there is there is no explanation in the record for why they did not make any


imp the board of immigration appeals why are sorry while the board immigration appeals was deciding that motion to reconsider mr florestan balkan's priority date became


dispute is about what is the definition to use for the matching the what is the federal definition of a but everyone agrees that if and if transport is included that there is a categorical


immigration judge that his client received the notice to appear and never challenged it his st time he didn't even challenge it on appeal to the board the st time he brought it up as before this court as for the pereira decision and his his reliance on that for whether or


homes she admitted that she had it had encountered numerous other sexually aggressive individuals like mr j s that she had been trained on how to deal with him that that part of that training involves removing yourself from the


inability to emulate he was caught in that he had traumatic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident and was diagnosed with a personality disorder this was an elderly physically


clear cut no cat violation i think what we've got is we've we've we've got a mix the police are not a monolith they're different individuals we have i think in the record there's there's even talk or suggestion that the police officers when they went to her


may use extract relation when they make that final however during the appeals process at every step claims are found to be payable so the error rate was changed the secretary does not argue that any new error rate was was actually


know that this is this is the way medicare is structured that these physicians sort of occasions are not binding on the secretary it's also the way that the secretary has explained the physician should have occasional parliament that the secretary is always retain the right to review to


ridgeley their rights determined to be ninety five but after going through the administrative appeals process it's down to like two percent or three percent so it's clearly not high value anybody that i know of definition isn't


court with all due respect to the family can the court reach a conclusion based on the evidence that the family is deeply misguided the shorter the district court does have that in the world to do that we would still submit that based on


along the community in our narrowly jurisdiction is where this court will begin and that's where i'll begin there are two different decisions of this court which preclude district court jurisdiction for two separate grounds one


lobe the supreme court says there are two elements of constitutional standing that you have to allege is that the that the defendants caused your injury well maybe


introduction of these text messages was because i think i think there's direct quotes that it would paint the paint him as massage honest and racist basically show what a bad guy here is and so i read the district judge says well no you can't just dirty someone up like


or her with this see to the seat three c and so you go out and you say i don't have a good record i don't have any record but i'm here because this is where i have to go before i can go to federal court


and one is common law and the mississippi legislature chose to extrude extend standing and liability in duty to those bearing the loss and that's that's not a catchphrase that we came up with


provision and that he was provided a change of address form and a list of attorneys to this petitioner and at that point at the top of the documents it does state number streets of the province and country of permanent


is no liberty interest here the regulations state that any omissions on the order to show cause do not provide substantial do due process are you so i would argue and i believe my time is up but i would agree with your honor on


that two thousand and three indictment mirrors subsection one it uses exact language from subsection one that does not exist in subsection two that includes the intent to steal that includes the intent to steal goods wares merchandise


well your honor the government's position is that mr kelly the only way to get around this waiver is through ineffective assistance of counsel planning and to valuate an ineffective assistance of counsel claims mr parks there hasn't be considerations of objective reasonableness


disagreement among the courts regarding bull coming to support the conclusion that the law is not clearly established and the fact that a member of the dissenters in this case of the supreme court level did they say the dissenting position was that


the testifying witness is the supervisor technical reviewer who has a personal albeit maybe limited connection but again it's a matter of degree it doesn't say that he had to this


i think that the argument is there that he did review all of her work for the he verified the resort results and certified the findings by signing the final report as the technical reviewer


cases that they cited that were to the contrary were from texas new york in tennessee those states clearly state that failure of the repair replace monty doesn't necessarily make the other


is a tragic fact that most of our civil rights jurisprudence involving excessive force cases arises out of circumstance where people are engaging in pretty reprehensible conduct as it turns out people to whom the police apply excessive force


use deadly force and this court's pattern in jury instructions on when qualified immunity is appropriate specifically spelled out to the jurors exactly what they have to believe and i went to that question yes or no and i think answer question one in the negative the rest of the case is over but then when this court


complaints is the department of justice letter from their investigation of the department of mental health and we adopted those allegations and as an exhibit and into the comply and that's one example of


and to fully and accurately inform the principals including my clients of important matters including out limitation the fact that the note thirty


a an intention or that effort to deprive property of the person why would this be harmed if there is any or why would it be harmful because i mean throughout your brief you say we're not there's no dispute there's a fraud yeah it's just we don't think you know we were defending


compensation as c e o but they said he has twenty seven million reasons why you should convict in this case but that's an argument of financial benefit that they outbid on but the financial benefit is not enough there has to we say


release a check until you've checked with your lawyer and get things worked out so subsequent to that november sixth i think is a signature date on the the most recent document we provided them or which was when the folks is


them on that but it was on the basis of the no genuine issue of internal fact this is different we do not you do not have to have a continuous and uninterrupted


taking the house away she was protecting her interest as she understood it she hasn't brought a breach of of contract claim and cheap non seated with amendment the amendment her slander of title claim all that leaves


fist i mean that's a positive image enough is that what your point is yes you're ok what about are we allowed to consider the impact of the customers because some of the some of the recession we are in some


said that it does not matter in the slightest any facts that develop or have anything to do with any of the now assess here except just what was going on with the officer at the time i think that's an incorrect analysis specially with errors because in regards to those


until two thousand and thirteen most of his adult life when he was not in custody he was arrested eight times for d w i or public intoxication arrests two of those arrests one from two thousand and four for d w i one from two thousand


votes international l l c we breathed a number of reasons we believe the summary judgment on behalf of boats and mercury marine ought to be firm and i plan to focus on a couple of the mala dressed


alex confronted allen nice with that signature and accused him of forging it he told alex that he did not forged that signature and that the patient was on the way to the facility and could clear up the whole issue rather than wait for the patient to come and talk to him


weeks due to justifiably reluctant but this court interstate contract incorporation which the district court order doesn't even cite said that for a warranty claim the plaintiffs has to show an affirmative representation justifiable reliance


to resolve the dispute how are they going to do it because specifically said there should be a written directive ordering these two to perform that work however as the court found and i think there were seventeen different change orders


acts under guideline section two x one point one eight and that looks like it must have been a typo but he's using the language of two x one point one beat so this read written objection which used this language was sufficiently specific


day we don't know and the government certainly hasn't shown it the government says it doesn't know how long it would take mr rodriguez to go and pick up the ammunition from the friend's house well it's their burden again to show that


proceeding the decision to deny was pre determined because the i j a engaged in perth bunkering questioning because he felt he had to create a minimal record because he knew the man was going to appeal the problem is


it's four of the transcript of the proceeding the st thing the immigration judge does is walk out and say you are not eligible i'm ordering you to put this court's case law recognizes deportation is a quibble in a


what statute it comes under and by the way the it is different to impose a reduced sentence them to reduce impose sentence it didn't say the court can only can only modify


wherein he ruled that our claim for the loss of cattle was precluded by the the exception of under the federal tort claims act which fourteen exceptions will call it


what they did in this case they put temporary pointing orders on the properties of the cattle owners that are the appellant's here so once those temporary pointing orders were put in place the cattle on those properties were


so because i think there was enough evidence elicited from the defense i do think this is the closest this is the closest issue in the case as to whether there was a or not it is not a close issue on the harmlessness point in our view because the evidence of actual knowledge is overwhelming


or to gather additional information so here both the agency and also the district court made a number of kind of disparaging comments about you know this information not being sufficiently new since that that last for view


any preferred policy position so what the state is asking is simply for that process that congress laid out to be adhered to and there is case law that we cite in our in our briefs that confirms these these processes that are laid


is there not an issue here as to whether the ninety nine he listing based on and perhaps outdated methodology understated the population do we know is that


it called in the c a so into his chambers and talk to him and then said based on that i'm going to green a new trial he publicized what it is he relied on which was documentary evidence from the law clerks that was the hearing it just wasn't an


half of deliberations in just thirty to forty five minutes after talking to see the so in after a juror who i think it's a fair inference was the same juror expressed that she had reservations does she come around in vote


your honor judge found in united states versus hangs in our circuit for the last thirty years sentencing has been based on a particular his determination of the amount of narcotics that are


circuits i think have all spoken to it i mean it may not have been teed up in the same you know the same kind of detail as it is here but the reason why was because no court thought until the th circuit in two thousand and seventeen that there was any kind of affirmative finding in a verdict form


lack of training case because if there is no probable cause and if there is excessive force then you have you lose the immunity and he or she had as our expert said that there's


as pocket it fell over here you see the officer reach back here grab his baton flick it open behind him police fan forward reach over and push it and push it away like this over to get the knife out of the


young woman running you know they didn't see any car right there or their buildings obstructing the view of the passing traffic that he would potentially be running into do with those that lay out


there there may be something to slowing it down but just to you know there's this whole as you goes toward estates mischaracterizations and i put that employer all but there's at least three different


did not intend self harm why it's unreasonable because she knew or at least wrote about me and told her that she had been smoking marijuana and was abusing


medical history and her prescription history and then she would want to about to try and identify the facility which ultimately ended up to be a walgreen's she did not know that at the time of what she could use to verify those


why this court should depart from its own clear precedent about a junior college district on the immunity question t f c points to two things that may be tensions in the law i want to briefly discuss one is this


suggestions that they are simply misreading the effect of this that the statute should be seen by the court as similar to the louisiana statute that was an issue and united disaster response and in re allied signal that that


or which she never received a constitutionally sufficient hearing and a useful way to think about that is what if there had been not even this sham hearing but no hearing at all it would be very clear where you were at anchor the causation you


minimum unity rather they rest exclusively on state law immunity to a state law claim this court has routinely recognized texas governmental immunity jurisprudence binding governmental immunity contains two strands


what evidence supports the damages or mr or properly found that there was no evidence supporting an award of anything beyond nominal damages or procedural due process claim early in my colleague's presentation


go to the city manager st and we reached out on appeal on this appeal i don't believe so because it's an interlocutory order on qualified immunity for you i think that would have to be on the summary judgment


trial it affects my trial tactics had the most in suppressed been granted to the defendant and his counsel would have been in a different position and might very well have made a different decision about the jury trial that's


suspicion whereas forensic examination of a cell phone requires or a showing of reasonable suspicion my personal view is a complete get your why aren't idea only by


about successfully of it evaluated by a doctor down she determined that he had in fact made behavioral and academic progress so because he's stabilized he can in fact receive the compensatory services and benefit from them and you


but having failed to do that then there's no we're not longer in the split world that these other cases where are we well i think it's possible that the discrimination claim could be arbuckle but nobody ever moved to compel


the rd circuit found that that was a clear error and here's why the rd circuit said that you couldn't at the time that the defendant made that statement and said he wanted to make the government kreutz case the defendant did


body of that document say that phoenix will surrender the policies and this makes sense the annuity holders already had a surrender right under the annuities there was no need for the attorney general to go to bat there was no need for phoenix to enter into a separate


california law that was being challenged that that required pregnancy centers to disseminate a specific state crafted message or about the availability of free abortion procedures and the court said that that was


involves a surveyor statute in mississippi and whether or not using a computer to create graphical renditions of meets and bounds constitutes speech or conduct and so if the court finds that it doesn't need to reach the abrogation


position in this particular appeal is a little bit different then the other parties as well because we are a non party to the injunction injunction order and that was one of our arguments in the brief is that even though we are a non party to this


years prior but did nothing to press in that interim it was assumed that that data had been spotted that triggered at a hearing about four days later on october th


are highly analogous to this case particularly the auntie case i would say that the while that the standing issue wasn't the dressed the planet had standing in most cases to proceed with those planes


i believe that you cannot address the issue directly but i'm not sure your honor i would have to rely on the briefing that i that we provided to the court but what the court indulgence i can refer to it or well that if that's that you believe that that's the d


for mr floyd for the union rivers was forced to concede in opposition to the summary judgment motions that night she had her absolutely nothing to do with that terminations and that the bloomberg administration had


then the plaintiff wouldn't have seen what at least somebody said was a problem with his complaint and might have been in a position to say oh i can solve that and ask for leave to amend and we'd be in a very different posture what


they made it clear that there closure works with quick lock machines so the customer could be confused as to whether that that somehow quick like approved those closures or they were authorized closures that could be sold that work in quick lock machines


was the testing that was done on the bottom two that indicated they could also work maybe it was done by quick lock and they had a strip of each closure made out of there were three


and they just take your credit card and swipe it you have the right on that basis to believe that your information is not being held indefinitely yes and i'd like to turn back if we could before you sit down will take a little extra time to help me


enable a trial finder of fact to reach some conclusion whether the same or different than what judge draco reached what are the what's the evidence on that question sure our position is that in the


did her binders financial binders relating to the bridge loans that were accessible to her that would have shown that the amount raised was much greater than the amount in the bridge loan binders


i mean we could we could hold a motion in abeyance in senate back to the district court judge on this record the governor would ask the court to decide the motion to to hold that this defendant


result which is an anomalous result based on the case law incredibly anomalous because really there is no second circuit case or other circuit court cases for that matter where substantial assistance is found and no reduction at all is granted so it is truly an


that the law recognizes then and it recognizes now and it hasn't changed at the time of his sentence you had both you had precedent and you had the guideline amendment if we didn't have the guideline amendment


still and you're required as a federal practitioner to be familiar with the sentencing guidelines and i know that they're confusing and complex but in this case there was no confusion here you had johnson and you had the


courts i've done it before these things this is this is commonplace which may be why i couldn't find any other cases that were in the situation because i think everyone was raising this issue either for consideration at the sentencing


going over here is effectively his and whatever he does with it at that point it's just it's not being used for the benefit of his of the pension plan plan employees i also want to test the restitution argument place in the


will be or can be altered or whether the concerns that that i'm expressing are obviated by the fact that the payment already went out or were some other measures i guess that's


i did it's done that since the argument it's not sufficiency because one of the things that led against i've tried the past look at each conspiracy on its own if the evidence would have been sufficient to convict if that were the


accident that day and he was in it well i would submit i believe that there was one other but since i my recollection of that is hazy i don't want to it would be in the record and i believe it's part of our brief when we describe all the other


the other which is the mailing but i see my time is up and i'm sorry thank you


claim allows so it doesn't matter here whether he's guilty under this theory or that they're in the fact is that he participated in the shooting that left an innocent bystander dead in the middle of the street


to order the production of documents sought through the seven hundred eighty two application further quoting additional constraints applied to documents were ok did abroad which would make it impossible for a french court to order the production of any documents held in the united


here there has not been a decision denying the discovery the decision of the and the there was a decision by judge schofield on september fourteenth twenty fifteen


his interest in this case might have been legitimate to say he's we're moving that school immediately and we're going to hold a hearing meanwhile but that didn't require them to immediately banned him from forever working in the deal we again and it didn't require calling his employer to say


evidence of discrimination at sikorsky but he couldn't sue on that because he didn't timely bring the administrative proceeding to sauces remedies of that then that my understanding at the doesn't have


be the date the i j a was was had preached pre judge this case as judge can point out she was trying to see whether there was a way through the mess i'd use my time's up if i could just briefly respond to that it's not entirely


hundred thousand to settle the case or to satisfy a judgment in that case but it has an additional duty to defend me and that's outside and supplemental to the five hundred thousand hour


century that the new york and asked them whether payment with the even with or without the language in it does does the limit of liability expose them only to pay payment for that sum right


to associate in the defense provided you were given notice which they reinsurers here were not given and you have to right to contest what the underlying liability point is here you have a situation where coles principal argument


debt was not in default until some time after the january twenty one twenty fifteen letter and that's consistent with alibrandi which says there must be period before between


the record to tell us how much is his sentencing guidelines would have gone up how that would have been either the same or different than what he revealed during cooperation proffers i think judge chin was exactly


or as this court most recently considered a nonparty representation it boils down to one important question is there a substantial risk that a client's confidential information


the judge what time of day to the judge so this is late in the day it appears because it says on page eighty seven sixty nine jurors were excused that four thirty six and then there's a discussion in the jury room


gave this clearly erroneous instruction five years after a decision in bruce's highly troubling this instruction undermines the presumption of innocence which is not only one of the most fundamental principles of our criminal justice system but also one of the principles most widely known and understood by


the worst case scenario associated with them and the government has proffered given has proffered in its brief why there's another take on those comments when when the judge said that's disturbing there have been at least


judgment and should have entered summary judgment for travelers on the coverage issue namely whether the the stolen property by jamie sesar ready that he stole from his warehouse was


only going with the january then they may or may not want to put in december so is there somebody that's going to put in december that you are aware of do you have a witness or mr goldstein are you going to cross examine him with that or


it late but they they notify the authorities and the authorities re sense him so how can you get damages beyond the date of reasons well because you're on our position is they didn't have the authority to even bring him


been expected to divine the answer before then i'd like to spend the bulk of my time however addressing the issues in our cross appeal and these are the due process issues judge hellerstein imposed damages


well it comes into play in both arguments so as to the argument that the footie of a foodie evidence should have been suppressed one of the questions is did mr stagg man have a reasonable expectation that the question is did he have a


stronger than say on the roads or on the footie property why do you think that that expectation is not does not include not having people look at you from four thousand feet in the air with enhanced


the minute those funds at the posit into the attorney's escrow account here you had a court order from judge beatty back in february of zero eight which directed the dryer firm to hold these monies in trust on behalf of its clients


discharges as obligation so that's what we have with respect to the eight hundred thousand dollars bonus guaranteed bonus with respect to any additional amount i don't believe that this commission based argument was actually raised below certainly it's


since the images do contain metadata those that do it would not be a particular difficult program exercise to say is this image copyright it is their own or listed in


allow internet providers to operate freely and assume that their users are going to be law abiding citizens and follow the terms of service but if you as a machine maker cross any line and


narrow i mean we can argue all we want about what p e i see may have intended might have happened if they lost on the declarations that they asked for but you can't get away from the fact that their complaint is very specific


if there is any other proceeding it should be clear that all of those issues in those arguments are reserved they weren't they weren't addressed and that statement about individual i think was a mistake because there are some other issues that would impact that so if they were to address them


is by the diplomatic notes unless the foreign country chooses to do something which they have not to up to this point although in all of the notes i believe in all the notes but almost all the notes they response if it will require


present protection a compilation of information we review the district court's decision here for abuse of discretion because this is a preliminary injunction case tell me how the court abused its discretion in finding that


only says i find you credible i'm going to find you credible nine of these meaning this really is your reason you're not doing this is as as a pretext should not read it that way and if not why not i don't think so i think he is he


declaration saying that the policy of promoting from within is quote vital for both the morale and growth of the department and also allowed for promotional opportunities to open up at the lower level


misstate the evidence and several of the things in there i wasn't sure were misstatements but one of them really bothered me which is on page thirty five you criticize appellants for asserting that science has said he had no intention of promoting appellants


pick judgment interest but i'm also concerned that almost half a million dollars in attorney's fees and i would submit that if they say that they're going to pay the loss the loss includes attorneys fees but they're excluding amounts under


some cases or case and he said she said this is a case of we said he's dead and in this case if they're going to rely upon this furtive hand gestures a basis for doing what they did i think i have the right


quick so then there's this discussion of affirmative act and i'm i guess i'm having trouble understanding where this affirmative act concept fits into the framework that we just agreed exists


they were getting and they did not receive those protections and that's what happened and then going to page fifteen page fifteen of the order does not specifically address the timing in fact it references august and specifically states that it was after the fact was


body just stayed there and where there's photographs of the knife in the in the little garden area a few feet away from the body and well again this is sort of we now have all


man standing over somebody who shot at nine times he was pretty close he's a pretty good shot mister what is your view of what should he have done in the circumstance what


or the bank but they undertook an investigation and there is some evidence in the record in the course of the investigation that investigator


person tooling company and he never had any insurance he had in the past was a five hundred thousand dollars life insurance that he paid cash for the premium on that this is twenty five million one point seven million just for the first year premium


in court you know the two letters service somewhat different purpose i mean the first the first letter the first denial letter is to let counsel know were the claimant know this is what i need to submit evidence on the second letter is in order to


reveals normal objective physical findings based on the information in file i believe that their language based on the information in file you should be capable of performing in the same physical capacity as


denied based upon total disbelief total disability and based upon the sofa report of symptoms the evidence makes that clear that that's exactly what's going on here this is something that you know there litigation counsel looked at as they were sort of getting ready for trial briefing he said here we've


the may two thousand and eleven letter starts off saying we're going to request beyond the twenty four months based on the total disability definition that and the s r s limitation and then there's a conclusion that your honor read that in between is


understand that's what you're saying yes that that is one of the bases for their will for the relief the requesting in this court and what they want what role council does the case of golden versus california emergency physicians medical group this was decided after


most of this evidence excluded and when did and when did he lose confidence why did why did he pay the judge asked them expressly on the record side from the representation made by the attorney that the people a she was agreeable to him and he said


as i understand it hadn't had and yet open for business in terms of accepting claims but had it into locking into locking maybe too strong a word overlapping number of similar advisors that the other two trusts had and as long as the case


required metropolitans pay the manger yes deduct that portion of the five hundred thousand that went to the plaintiffs which was about twenty five thousand each for the nine plaintiffs and and


for not only the revenue when they said they could raise anything they wanted under the revenue limit system has long as after they got through raising it and the state would look at it and they'd say here's the revenue limit


california they also don't have serrano similar decisions and no state correct they that they don't have that but as i look at mitchell factor number one is who's going to have to satisfy judgement and in this case because the


j really makes the entity the performing of the central government functions and therefore is not anymore a state


aspects but they come up with a minimum base grant and then the county can raise more money locally and that's exactly what's happened here with the thirty nine percent of their funding coming from other


said no matter how you phrase it no matter how you dress it up it's still a telecom issue in the two years statute of limitation should apply


that decision itself from the f c c in two thousand and nine refers specifically to the fact that north county was providing services to chat lines what portion of the district court's order finding that you weren't a carrier is


fair enough so based on that case of koehler versus presidio which i will provide twenty a letter with the clerk will give you a piece of paper afterwards or enough it provides that it would support the district court's


data and then also pointing out that if we must try to put these retail markets are we have methods of doing so in that is in the evidence that is in the record no we didn't cite in our opposition to the certification but that's wasn't our


just you either seeking a new trial or you're seeking a directed verdict in your favor what are you seeking for us from either of we would be obviously prefer because justice delayed is justice denied that it's inferred i don't need a speech with each


positioned to testify that that was the causation no your honor it's merely the we're not using mr as on his statement to in fact show causation but rather that very tight temporal


a procedural fault as to why that was not technically before the court so that case was one of them i guess i can cases wealth and also a proper case before you are really in this case he i understood you correctly from wrong that he actually filed these papers


but we don't want to go there if congress hasn't spoken i concur with that but where you have a scope of maritime workplace injury damages congress has spoken and you're not free to accept what the court should not be free to expand


testify at trial three bro were by witnesses who testified at trial and actually mr till it did not testify at trial he wasn't available there were others from the marrying transcript testimony where he had done for the petitioners the shooter in the murder but when you look at that


keep the court of appeals off my back so i said this is abuse of discretion decision this is the way i decided and this is why so stay off of me i made my decision she didn't do that if she did on that had been easy i think


not preserve the status quo we we owe it to these people to do our best because justice delayed is justice denied we have we know that it's an ongoing situation with these people that they're not going to get better


meeting in which she was terminated misael is was there who had just come back from leave and sterling they were not in h r they were not decision makers ok the decision makers were two women both mothers they were


two thousand and one with a land expert who with working with sempra is irrelevant if the facts of that meeting were presented to the court and well when you presented the facts of the meeting but if sempra


apparently a politician allegedly according to the testimony pressured them but it didn't have any effect because both testified as i believe your honor pointed out that they made an independent determination and that determination that this evidence


and let me put it that way could we because of a child's illness suggest the child be placed at home and given home hospital instruction that would mean it seems like you could recommend it in the court could say no way it would


government specifically required the particular chemicals to be used in the operations that now have to be cleaned up and the government was aware of the operation that led to the contamination now on those facts all of which were present and


first of all the district court didn't ignore that fact as was the case in some of the cases that t d y cites in the brief with regard to this issue the district court recognized that for many years up to one thousand nine hundred nine in fact the united


harmful chemicals that of course doesn't relate in any way to the one of seven why the only determination nonetheless does the district court sort of have to take into account non one zero seven tied why the only consideration then i would say that the district court


well when they never mention that they have a disability and they've been held disabled the same time they're claiming in their declarations they would have continued to run the business until they're sixty two and the evidence to the contrary was brought out of your deposition but not in their declaration that they submitted i do


evidence surfaces that calls into question the accuracy of the information on which the earlier decision was based otherwise you've read out of the constitution that other provisions have and you know you have that ok well under your reading a final inconclusive would that other provision ever get


erroneous but the second assistant secretary rejected that in effect giving a more plaintive protective burden of proof placed on the tribe nonetheless he found that there was ample evidence in the record before him


conflict there's an a serious interference with the debtors ability reorganize that's not what this is about the debtors we were going to she's on her white performing under a chapter thirteen plan


bankruptcy judge says look it's more efficient to take care of it here and this is a discretionary decision and the district court looked at it isn't it a pretty high bar to reverse for use of discretion or not or if not abuse of discretion sander


a rule fifty nine motion because it was filed after thirty days after the final judgment not within the required twenty eight days the plaintiff basically we have here a motion to amend which the


essentially what we were asking for at that you're going to address that to the district court right i mean that's correct and we believe that i must say i looked up looked at your complaint and i'm not sure you gain a lot of mileage the district court threw it out for a bunch of


that he had malice because he was angry they did not know that heat of passion also uses that exact same word anger and very similar words hot blood rage resentment terror fear how did this happen


parties and offered to the court without objection the trial judge said spencer number of those instructions and they became on her word


could in those are the questions on point one is that contain is right on point contained says when you violate the status quo which they did when they put their dozer up there and started cutting underneath the pipeline then it became a dangerous


sorry to interrupt you and i won't do it again and then you said that that we started talking about this two thousand and twelve two thousand and fourteen chicken orders so whether they have to do with this contract not to interfere with each other and stuff


personal jurisdiction in the case of a specific jurisdiction allocation it is one thing you look at in fact if you go look at can the consulting engineering opinion it cites burger king under factor for there is no separate disambiguated


processing of the request for a year and four months and they're told by statute to do something within twenty days now there are exceptions to that they can plead unusual circumstances or they can point to the volume of records


was he was not represent although he is quite knowledgeable about the foyer maybe so we can have a sliding scale of knowledge ability he was under represented and i don't want to stand while the


that mr conrad subjectively believe there was a violation of federal regulations under the facts as outlined to take the hours of service complaint is an example employee reports an injury that marks off the manager


not even exactly saying that they're not aggressive it's simply saying that it did a better job could be done i'm having a little trouble seeing how it sets back the efforts efforts


fund the only thing that i've heard and i heard him say about they put potential for harm was sort of an undermining the public trust you know concern this court said in durham v jones that that


comments now today they're arguing that they're about misconduct and respectfully they're false and every they knew they knew they were false at the time of the terminations and so they don't they're not last with the type of protection that might come from durham


it would be silly to suggest that the police were committed toward by entering to determine whether violence or threat of violence has just occurred or is about to or soon will occur and that's the situation we have here


also must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact and in this case as i indicated there were not sufficient facts and in a very close case as as we saw


hauling these boxes of marijuana him from the government's case the other two pieces and assertion that he had no idea and that he purposely avoided learning the facts came from mr thompson


likewise hope that i don't i don't get things out of order here and step on someone i'll try my best not to i would like to begin by answering some of the questions that were posed by the panel during mr clegg


about his expert who was there in court and was prepared to testify i believe what mr flowers was saying is that he needed to have his expert


brought into effect in two thousand and seven so that and the district court there's no evidence in the record that these other methods of registration actually work for african americans all the district court did was just cite to the to the federal law


which affects the lives of all citizens not just the members of one and it's this combination maybe the cases out there but the combination


the object of all reasonable belief and to i think it's the difference in the standards of what we make the difference in the standard reasonably believed because no i'm asking what words in the standard makes makes it


correct yes ok so woman so you're saying that i'm sorry right here i got so you're saying then that you have one has to be a formally designated supervisor in order for liability to incur to


it's sufficiently severe right and the court has indicated so we agree that's what they've said time and time again not that a single incident will never do it that's correct but when it went works at a single incident the single i don't know any case


theory here what you know disagree with counsel's description or a student condo or claim preclusion and so far as an important element is that you could have brought the claim at the time you bought the initial


more than just the breach of contract thank you


interference action what could they do i didn't say there was no tortious interference act and this as i said there's no claim under the business conspiracy statute that's very different there's no claim for trouble damages nobody's fees and criminal


that she and her fellow students on this case not only are graduating in three days but just completed exams and we decided that for a variety of reasons perhaps my delivering the rebuttal with relieve a bit of the pressure with the court's permission i'd like to address two specific


this i asked her in her deposition why did you not report this and she did not want to say because of what happened to mr meadows i knew it was pointless because they they they they they ignored her and let her be abused


do and so that's where we are left here and that's how we slide in this whole business of is this a condition proceed and it was a forfeiture and you get into the whole north carolina which is different from maryland in terms of how you construe these


the bank talked to mr clayton and then mr clayton the agent went over to mr peterson's office and they talked about how to fill this form out and then mr clayton submits the form thereafter in the jury must have concluded with their no that the bank could not


in the statute are met for example the forty five day rule and others but in no event does a state educational agency actually adjudicate a hearing they always have to hire


i think the government's brief as the evident the only evidence that's relevant this case is in this as marcus is affidavit where she says they came in at five in the morning not approximately not going to make this argument in front of the immigration judge we certainly did your honor and that's why she said i assume in fact in her


record deportation which is essentially a summary by the agents that they had interviewed her and that she had admitted that she wasn't legally in the united states and it was this evidence that resulted in a finding that she was movable from the united states if you got them but you went into the