here's the days it was close what evidence was there that mr fastow was wrong with this record of it is that i don't believe mr has you know i guess for anything so what evidence what affirmative evidence was there in the evidence in the record in which he could


study which is contemplated by the statute because it is a controlled and beautiful study found and i'm quoting from page four hundred and seventy three the difference in purity results are statistically significant


only in immediate patient care area that's religious at all i thought you said only two immediate care providers well and while there are yes vibing yes the companies although it would be


board clearly held these were not based on substantial evidence these were unlawful in their face and i should just note that boeing did not touch upon any areas of board law were such balancing is already


apply only to manufacturing three months later they said oh no they can apply to the world who struction underwater construction i have a case involving underwater construction and the crane


signal to add that if you needed one yes there it is there there is in there that general statement to respect the mission that is correct according to the board's view though there is a difference between


five they their evidence that comes in in the cases should be lower as we point one that means they have to go through in another entire ruling so that really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever


practice there was a bit of a moving target about what exactly are they challenging it was worth to be clear what exactly is the issue because for instance it did it does make a difference whether they're challenging the actual exemptions or the replacement response


perspective the point is that there had to be something yes o e m would have been easiest but there had to be something and from the agencies for that if there was nothing that's correct and therefore there's a problem with these regulations with compliance with the right absolutely or are used to students and


this record may be material omissions but that's not the charge and i really in reading the record and reading the test you're using i have no idea what you're talking about materials to action there's nothing in the record that i see


specifically charged in the f a s complaint each of those with a different kind of bearing from a different manufacturer and had its own it were so it would have its own original study come back to you have you asserted that the statement is


club you could have done something more analogous to what it did here and said whatever whatever avenues you have to challenge whether we are fulfilled this ninety percent standard that was at issue in that case


opinion that it really has you know if the secretary if if the commissioner judge said i'm going to inflate assessment because of the mind size the question is why why is it so much worse than what the secretary did again


or show up in court may show up in court and it's the executive branch of the proposal as to what your time should be but the judge acts completely denote but in that context the judge doesn't have any duty to explain a departure from what the police officer


rule is that once employees have relied on that offer of employment without expression of interest a higher there cannot be any new terms and nouns after that point it wasn't in these circumstances there should be


that basic statutory construction want to one really under the reseller case that were congress chooses to discreetly include language or exclude language from particular provisions that that has to be given me so for purposes of doing the


certification program several years ago when a modification to the cruiser vacation programs and you told them they didn't need to specifically told them in the e mails at least they don't need to change the charts right or too so that was a decision by the f r


what we have is an issue with the sixty one sixty nine that the mandatory language would put in there with the language current annual salary in the same public act back in one nine hundred seventy two they were drawn together at the hip as it


if it was one incident it was a violent incident and both of them were involved in the violence so i think the facts of this case demonstrate outrageous conduct and that committee of damages were


fundamental shift from the singular goal of representing rehabilitation to include protecting the public again accordance with the policy of the act and holding juvenile offenders accountable for their actions


negative there's no negative language or consequences does not


and separation of powers equal protection and due process grounds an appeal without responding at times to justify the trial court's ruling also tries to shield it from review by claiming that the issues are now moot


the punish the minor is the problem accountable for wrongdoing and as these court as well acknowledged in previous occasions with respect to the nine hundred ninety nine amendments to the juvenile court act the juvenile court at that has become much more


parents want to sure that it complies with the conditions of supervision and under probation the minor will be assigned of probation officer who will he will need to check in with so there are stark differences between bob so there's no social service involvement


text and contrary to the structure of the mental health code as a whole we think that the concerns that the appellate court was trying to address can be fully accommodated and if the court sees fit to provide guidance to the circuit


three dash into one of the mental health code my opposing counsel indicates that we are trying to write new sorts of conditions into section three eight zero one i would respectfully submit that exactly the opposite is true for all the section three eight


statute a directory reading would be equally valid and i think more appropriately attributed to the general assembly and given the nature of the statute the general assembly knows how to make automatic notification explicit in a statute they've done that


initial threshold has been met by the party advocating the crime fraud exception the in camera questioning by the judge should begin with a narrow question such as coal did your client ask your advice on how to commit this


world the supreme court has recognized as far back as the worldwide both swag and decision the jurisdiction doesn't travel with the chattel the way that the court memorably put it was that the manufacturer doesn't appoint the chattel it's agent for service


and second this is not a case that involves wholly innocent conduct and i want to be clear about what i mean when i say wholly innocent conduct wholly innocent conduct as this court has defined it most recently in holland but also in carpenter


state's case against him even though such a motion had a reasonable probability of succeeding in changing outcome mr henderson's prosecution the public court agreed with mr hasn't since argument that he was illegally seize when the police stopped the car and whiskey in which he was a passenger but


case if you're under seven for the questions karl hundreds of requests that this court find his trial attorney was ineffective failing to follow a motion to suppress the gun the motion had a reasonable probability of succeeding and it was mr henderson's strongest defense of his charge so no reasonable


analysis comes into play when the defendant has been seized for purposes of the fourth amendment and fourth amendment protections than come into play in this case the seizure was over when the define it made the decision to


knowing defined as when you file a return you know under the amnesty they wouldn't have the record well i guess at the risk of repeating myself your honor which is never a good eye section six zero


enacting this separate amnesty program with its super charged penalty provisions was to dayne taxpayers who didn't know that they had a tax liability and say you know what you have a tax liability we now all discover


promulgated by the department as well which we describe at page twenty five and twenty six of our brief and relevant here are allegation of harm sixty which is intitled environment injurious to the health and welfare of the child provides that placing a


will fill in the blanks they knew that they they need the arbitrator to do this the arbitrator properly look to their bargain history realize that these are the the the ends of the spectrum that the parties both proposed but couldn't reach on and


if the at with the kids if the appellate court were correct then that certainly would fly in the face of this course interpretation of the immunity provision to encompass transport what is


rules what happens if they stop someone that is just from a neighboring community that's cutting through the i asked that specific question the what they would do is inform the person that they were


greater includes and tells us how we answer that question and the united states supreme court has given states the latitude to make that determination united states supreme court if any are these roles the united states supreme court will gets to this issue alternately they won't


no there is no ruling there is no ruling other than from the circuit court i found that it was not a special legislation it's sent the whole thing back to the labor boards


as peace officers and have and a district somewhere maybe that has taken on one or more their you know the function of what normally would be the municipality where instead of having to


other we have thirty days to file our petition for review we have thirty days to file a notice of appeal but we only have twenty days to file our suits in the circuit court


strict requirement that the legislature would have said we want the commission to be the final arbiter we don't want them to have this right to get to the circuit court and have their their case reviewed and hard we want to make it really hard for him to do that is that what this court


to be paid by the fund without limit upon the insolvency of an insurer so if the claim addition here falls within the definition of workers compensation claims then the


persuasive arguments to make the legislation to change section five thirty seven point two but one must assume either they were raised when the sit stage was originally written or it's something now that guarantee fund see that needs to clarify but the statute is written is very clear


important factor and should be given little weight if any interstate case such as this is technology's changed all of these documents that he's that the plaintiff is referring to all electronic they are all easily


opportunity to include them in the case and include them in a wall they choose chose instead not to do so and to file a motion to dismiss instead that runs opposite of what they're arguing here today about how important the wall of that administrator


unimportance of it as a relates to the circumstances that fall in section c


know the statute doesn't say that it says but no later than and those are the negative words did i best i could i'm sorry you know the state referred to a gloss from dull the lawyer and that's simply


not it doesn't come up in background checks for employment so it's not discoverable that way now mother was not indicated if for instance in a case where it


different penalties and therefore the statute in fact was not void have an issue did we use that term in washington in describing what happened there and the process of reviving a statue


that is earth the preemption rate of the internet tax freedom and yes correct and i mean would we even have to reach the constitutional question do you suppose now we're in a


pursuant pursuant to a contract with a cable television operator located in the state soliciting orders for tentacle personal property by means of advertising which is transmitter distribute over cable television so there's a host of means traditional i'd like try to cannot electronic


it is not provided for in illinois law and in fact illinois law for instance could amend the generous and we could amend this that statute to say when you are released your rights are resort other then your right but that's a firearm in some states


back to that because it just came to mind was the suggestion howard was told and he testified his work comp attorneys he asked is this income you have to pay child support on that and the work comp attorney who was a work comp


vission that he has discretion and he should consider these factors that would do a bit more work in this case and and the cases will through the creative process come up with


statute the statute is very clear the court has no duty to award twenty percent but it does have a duty to say if i'm not going toward twenty percent then it is my job to tell you appellate courts and the people that are here and to pursue what the


something like that that's what their occupational expert put in so the fact that he's disabled the nature and extent of disability should be a factor that the court takes into consideration with everything else


we don't we find it not be professional services so a lawyer like myself might go and file a lien on behalf of a client a non client b might find that offensive find something wrong about what i just did and sue


your position


a petitioner is going to be afforded visitation now vent goes contrary to what this court has said and in j s a and also and i believe in re the matter of john


case we cited where if a person threatens to kidnap their own child that's it that doesn't next not a threat involving force and certainly a threat to kidnap if that you know person does not have parental rights anymore the top the child but it does not have as


plaintiffs were being punished for future action now what mr muck of all is done he's a smart guy i like him a lot he's going to turn that on his head and said the only thing you need to look at with regard to andre is future punishment and with all due respect that's not


drinking talks about you know the fact that he does seem to be somewhat incorrigible about coming back after being removed from the country and so the judge i


dr dearborn said if you told me that i had to do it it being used one bad to cement i would quote unquote say go find another surgeon zimmer's surgical technique died at the time said absolutely nothing about


the d o t description of past work there are plenty in there that can do that and we're not and again we're not talking just about aspirin we're talking no i do have a i see the list right the thing it's


was apparently completed but never given to the agency the other point that i would like to make with regard to the obesity is again miss summers was obese through most of her


disputes that stand between him and relief in this case and the very serious reasons to think that in a jury trial he may be able to convince the jury that his constitutional rights were violated so regardless of the fact that he may have filed other claims these


said was it thirty five mill card might be an access device but we require a little more proof to see how such a card might be used and that's overall may my main point in this case is there's got to be something more


equivocal then you really are getting to the point where there is some kind of magic word or magic phrase that a defendant has to use that requires the police to stop questioning otherwise the police are


inflection and how things are said what they're in response to all of that matters to whether it's an unequivocal invocation of counsel and given what happened here we don't believe that there was an unequivocal


suggesting with a lot of different things everyone must commute well no i'm not suggesting a lot of different things i'm suggesting a lot of options any one of which would have been easy if during this captain's meeting or during the earthquake call somebody captain white and


that reliance interests expectation interests of bondholders and employers are protected under the contract clause even if it's more expensive to


that the concern about attracting and retaining a quality workforce has been in existence they were in existence when brand was decided they were in existence when black was decided i mean that the fundamental issue in all of those was how do we


done the other job she did was landscaping or more type work again the same situation where as you know and in the case of lucy and i've used that example repeatedly you know there they have


defense takes no opportunity to correct a mistake an instruction or does not take advantage of an opportunity to correct a mistake in the instructions then there's a way


it because the facts demonstrate that the parties were repeatedly coming to our us who i critically both jensen schmidt and kind agger at the same time were in fact presenting opportunities to settle even if they did so


been come involved in the words used by john schultz were a cold war and that rather than a cold war who're and that rather than communicating with one another for purposes of looking out for the insureds interest it personalities struggle had


which was insufficiently documented in the first place and could you repeat that which was if it's officially documented in the first place so that's how you're trying to spite the rejection of the change argument to say we don't are you actually


he had would say fall within the workers comp and that's that first the issue of whether or not the munity has been waived that has to be done within a court whether state or federal the to pretty important question


and apart from them simply being there to run the department aramark was essentially just an extension of the advocate it was an agent of advocate advocate controlled everything that market aramark couldn't


was different from that prosecution specifically the district court the trial attorney the defense counsel in this case would have been able to point out that the michael vicks case involved multi year multi state conspiracies the district the defense attorney would have


in their own complaint which is that not only did he have cell phone service he shouldn't pad but that he refused to discuss sign a behavioral contract that for therapeutic purposes


wisconsin person there and obviously the second question is why it's probable cause matter if as the district court did you credit the testimony of the officers that he consented to let


question and have you explain to us a little more precisely the timing here about spotting the evidence in question in plain view the


they're being prostituted and and they know that one of them is under age because we've already established who she is so and they know about the reputation of that particular hotel and cetera if the more thorough stor search


identification hotel keys maybe some more prepaid credit cards but but the real salient point here and the takeaway is that there was a wealth of information available to the officers the at the very first moment where they see this evidence


options limitation to sudden terry rather than light work which is what the state agency doctors the only doctors to apply and about as are seen records of com there's no treating physician opinion the record there's nothing to suggest despite the fact that there are


statement is an opinion but if true if you look at it it says if he has had for some months he should not try that seems conditioning as we argue in our brief that's a conditional statement it's not a medical sources and if you look at four


rule in the ineffective assistance of context of a council context where he was in fact counsel was required to learn the law and that didn't mean he could just restrict his case law search to what the seventh circuit said he was required to learn in general what the case law said and surely if it


affected his ability to have his company m g r continue in this program because hud would have looked at the criminal information and the language is quite clear at the next level down


well i think you have to also remember the fact that over ninety five percent of the loans at this case were reassuring from one government insured loan or refinancing i'm sorry from one government insured loan to another so in over ninety five percent of the loans at issue here the government was already on the


e next case for argument is medical college of wisconsin against the united states


i mean we're saying below the age of eighteen i realize who is close to eighteen but under the against the backdrop of the actual brain development there's still some way to go even when someone hits the age of eighteen and it's you're positioned in sort of like you know


the basis for the determination that he was in custody from illinois perspective he's going to get credit for all this time because the sentences are running concurrently so that provides no indication that they didn't consider it a transfer to primary federal custody things like natural disasters


threatening that's just defies common experience so i don't believe that fact supports an inference that this person was dangerous or presented any danger to anyone involved she responded to a sick or injured person call completely innocuous secure situation she went there to offer assistance not to investigate a crime


to give the instruction stating that the defendant that the plaintiffs had a legal obligation had a duty to mitigate their damages you know if you have a if you have an issue it's on the difference in language


doctrine that allowed offset and individual claims that was not what we were requests and that's not what we're requesting from this court i wish you would address my colleagues question and i'm attempting to


sixty b motions that were brought there's two cases there consolidated and they followed very similar tracks in the trial court i would want to point out that there are different defendants in each case in


out of some of these places where the people are around that they fall into bad habits in bad ways this is a superior way of handling things as opposed to say year and peonage not going to apply for a transfer to my jurisdiction where you want to go live you want to live in texas and


really a listing of her problems but no real analysis and then if under real id you're supposed to do a totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors well why not take a look at in


record three seventy five june twenty fourth january twenty fourth two thousand and twelve of the plaintiff told the doctors she still has to go to the bathroom six to nine times per day and in a function report which is in


breaks during the day and one of them probably coincides with lunch very easy to see that that probably doesn't preclude employment since important well off a couple points about the most critical thing is that this case was decided at step four where they


the sheriff would be pretty familiar with those facts the appellant didn't present any evidence of that to the district court or this any evidence of what of how the mileage it would take of the fact that he ran out of gas or was running out of gas everything


judge men did look at were ts but he said i did it the right way but he didn't do it the right way the first time and with respect to carrie davis's testimony in counsel's remark with respect to that that one of the reasons why that that


palisades collections which is a case from the fourth circuit and this i'm quoting here what's whitely decided and why that's so important how would you say it's correct she collections is exactly like this case and that case you had what you call


that's not such a good pattern and your honor we do not rely just on the pattern that is that is not the case we rely on the individual tins actions and the appearance of the transaction the patterns are what generate the


section of the argument and it was argued extensively in oral argument i would urge the court to go back and listen to the two thousand and fourteen argument in this case when counsel for the county made the point that when a prince purchases land


emergency basis on the basis of hastily prepared opposition papers that are currently before the court i'm willing and prepared to deal with this on appeal on until october basis and to the extent your honour's is suggesting an expedited schedule i'm current i'm certainly agreeable


court told the jury that it was to consider the predisposition cronk only upon a finding that the government quote did initiate these charged transactions it did so at the government's invitation and it did so because the government told the district


not a hollow requirement that it is by a preponderance of the evidence and that it is more than just evidence it has to be credible evidence and so what her prayer asked the court to insert actually would have been an inaccurate statement of the law if all the


adopt propose findings of facts and conclusions of law submitted by parties and so long as the court does so that's the findings of the court and i think i think well the both of these proposed findings or are these merely an articulation


over the president has a munity from say process is not a case in which the federal court would exercise its equitable power to abstain and not hear a case in which it otherwise has a clear jurisdiction over the dispute what is the what is the response to the


i would not say everyone is going to act in bad faith even in clinton v jones when the court said this case is going to proceed but it's important that were explaining that it's a federal court the court said local pressures may apply differently in a state form they do in a federal the court may agree or


have anything to do with the defendant's conduct the question is not conduct in general the question relates to if you look at the cases they all talk about the activities what activities those activities have to be is this court is is


production of the business records for the plaintiff business the plaintiff was severely negatively impacted in its right to present its case frankly it was ham strong


plaintiffs so whether or not there is municipal liability they should have considered the totality of the factual predicate to consider whether they had a timely claim against


that he saw equipment for producing encroachments credit cards so that wasn't just something that was added for purposes of the of the warrant by the officers


evidence that she she was disabled me she had to need replacement and and there were some other issues but is there what is the evidence that she relies on that fashion was on able to to


yes that's right and and the striking thing about the government's grief is you know amongst its arguments nowhere does or does it actually offer reason why congress would have written the statute in that manner that is to say


and had to spend one hour checking out each of the seven hundred thousand opinions that you say should go online that would take a by my rough calculation by the employees about one hundred years that not


that your honor has described as well as timing because it's it's not it's not the posting versus the individual production that is what takes time it's the review which which which will have to


so but you were your argument here the argument that a four simply does not authorize this kind of relief would apply as well to an agency that


agreement then he would no longer own them but none of that happened from me from the beginning mr charles has made it clear that he never signed a work for hire agreement that none was ever offered to him that it


is looking for essential a retrospective relief in the sense that what he is asking for is a declaration that previous orders of the district court of the gist of the state judicial divorce proceedings were were invalid and just one point on the


basis for i mean it's all circumstantial that he knew of the basis or lack a basis for probable cause macdonald argues as the trial he testified he didn't remember the rest he had no and there's no evidence


absolute in fourteen penn plaza which the police relied on to suggest that the case gardner denver was somehow


district court's decision that are on appeal today were correct and we respectfully request that this court affirm that as the court knows there are two separate decisions before this court with respect to the


of discretion indeed judge robinson had the familiarity with the defendant having presided over his trial and prior to sentencing and finally prescott noted that the defendant's existing sentence was sixty two months


exactly is being required of him or her it explains why they are receiving this package in the mail what the charge that the st the st document is missing a date and the nd document and


well your honor ultimately mr ted is that name was not particular by fraud if that name that identity that naturalization was not prepared by fraud wasn't he entitled to use that name


can be drawn based on the fact that al reacquired the company changing was a mobile mobile based app your honor that matched tutors with prospective pupils this jeezy business was a brick and mortar mortar business as the


any recitation of the procedural background the summary of the complaint the overview of the motions and the and the decision itself referencing knows only where it's pertinent to the argument so i'll get right to it as


know as far as it's possible for you to do so we know that the shipper shipped a lot of containers some more than the ship with us on other lines i would respectfully submit that alone


your honor who is one of the most respected people in law enforcement he's the monitor for g m he's the monitor for the recent might you situation the government itself has utilized him and what they would be doing is posting all former law enforcement officials including federal former


the plaintiffs mr shane hollywood and what he said is the sole document they relied on was a investment recommendation from i t v and that wasn't a one page investment recommendation that said i


addresses on baxter haven't you three minutes later and that's how they changed the time frame of the lester street cameras by three minutes but they played an exhibit that was twelve seconds long showing one set of


martinez about rob you know you're not are you going to rob my brother you've got another thing coming he also confronted great so he st went and confronted gray in the middle of the night and then he circled the block and came


hundreds of plastic baggies and actually baggies pre prepackaged with marijuana that was ready to sell it contain three thousand dollars and drug proceeds and importantly it also contains evidence linking them to the murder


he's not he has a limited intellect he was the victim himself of childhood sexual abuse he has a psychiatric history


training counseling subordinates and providing feedback to support the summary judgment on mr cycles claims regarding each of these positions should be affirmed based on the undisputed record below for the position in the


in the record pages three hundred and eighty five to three hundred and eighty eight that show issues that mr nd had with two different supervisors at the agency documenting issues of that nature for


recent case it was a case that challenged two college students right to speak on a college campus by the time the supreme court heard the case as judge roberts indicates the two students were no longer students at the college the challenge restrictions no longer existed


summary judgment because the only evidence we have here is his sworn testimony that he could not breathe on the night of april th and robertson had put forth no evidence contradicting any of the anti statement he wasn't seen until each now is later so the


definition of affiliate and so he's put on notice through that of how the backup was obligated to disclose the number of bonds held by affiliated parties in terms of his knowledge of the fact that beechwood mblaq were in fact


well i think that this is where the case alexander's attorney or to the court got to reggio is really important there is an instance where mental illness will


we are seeking in the alternative of course we think that that the court can enforce the award and deny comedy to the nigerian decision based on the substantial record that we provided to the district court which unfortunately


breaking up credit suisse because of its very high risk activities and and that was that was in two thousand and seventeen so and you make a point that in


enable credit suisse to hedge not for the benefit of investors so again just to just to make sure i understand what as far as you're concerned happens is that at whatever time for own right now there is a publication by s and p of a


their family members that had convictions for criminal offenses five jurors had relatives who had been convicted of crimes two were hispanic females both were struck by the government the others were


all possible that somebody might think that that would be a reason for striking a course that could be a legitimate reason there's no we're not making the argument that there aren't legitimate reasons it's that you have to look at the totality of the circumstances number one we were i was as a


face of all this case law that says they can is is inappropriate and the defendant has incited any type of case law to support that so we go to the next issue which is assuming that we can in fact look at the sentencing and handsome and did the


substance and the court made this specific finding it found the specific aggravating factors and also found that even if it wasn't in the list of the numerate in factors under the collar of colorado state law it could have


well so your client your client wins on this element because he was caught by the police before he could force the victim to engage him a future prostitution your honor if it happens in a future case then it would be appropriate for a future


she she retracted that whole thing and said she was just mad at him and made it up is it your position that she actually had to go through with an act of prostitution for the enhancement to apply it is


ticks between whether it's a statutory penalty or statutory damages that has legal significance in terms of a statute of limitations it doesn't have legal significance to a jury so it is still correct to present this to the jury and let me explain why


set aside as the hassan's bottles that process was underway when the when the bankruptcy filing occur that process ceased because the trustee assume control of the premises


is a correspondence in that sense of the term between what the hassan's order and what is found in the inventory of the trustee was looking at the records of the retailer


sold that why they have no ownership interest in that one with respect to the wine futures i mean those were all about what's the best way if them are role you know possibility that they would never be received


sufficient has not made a showing of harm sufficient to merit remaining his case the you know the supreme court in the in the sanders decision explained that usually it's


but it that it seems to me you're trying to use that for a for the evidence to establish an interdependent conspiracy when the government may have been using it simply as uses for for be evidence in any


parte before the magistrate judge while the defendant was still in state custody and secondly and perhaps more important or only his accomplice was brought in and turned on him and cut a deal and that led


does it say among it uses a language if not literally says something very close to not limited to but including and then he lists four things some of those four things are you talking about pages that aren't part of the record oh no i'm talking about the


do wire taps i don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that's not what happened here and i'm not submitting that that is what should have happened what i'm talking about is when we're talking about words that people are relying on in


that's true and certainly those are sacrosanct but other is a that a distinction yes should greater greater expectations of


exactly especially given his history i'm a little bit surprised he's still on the police force he seems like a liability and then the court says i have some serious questions about him frankly the evidence supports that in this situation then right


just said that he believed that at that moment that the cop the shot my client that at that very moment my client looked north he said he found him to be honest to he he took that as evidence he looked at this occur and i'm not trying to cut you off but


although officer areas background was troublesome to him and he was concerned about that that officer areas testimony was corroborated and it was he was corroborated by the by the objective this


exactly the same victim related adjustment as this one in that particular case the government did not present evidence of the defendant's subjective intent to commit


honor we're talking about some evidence that is substantial relevant evidence approach it evidence substantially outweighed by prejudice i think what played and did a trial significantly detracts from the argument that these felony convictions were so prejudicial planted


recognized that you know if you could prove that he was in compliance with medical marijuana last one require his conviction to be vacated it would just go to whether the department of justice was able to continue defending the conviction was that nd part


success in twenty dollars to forty dollars ones when you're talking about conditions of confinement those changes every day don't they i'm sorry aren't conditions of confinement change every day and you bring conditions of confinement cases under twenty to forty one


arguments in the mid atlantic capital good morning may it please the court in opposing counsel my name is andy stanton from jones day here on behalf of appellant mid atlantic capital corp


bit more about another waiver issue that m e c c has with this statutory construction argument if the court has the opportunity to go back and look at the pleadings


consistent with the extremely well settled principle of very limited review of arbitration awards and deference to the arbitrator's because


right or how those were necessarily necessarily stored right that they weren't there is some suggestion that and again this is all outside the plea agreement which i think is the critical factual basis for evaluating this case but you know there


issue and i understand you're bringing both facial and as applied challenges i'm particularly interested in the as applied and you're speaking more directly to that of course your honor now i think that in


by by co counsel who focused on the speedy trial issues i don't know that i can cite to any specific examples beyond what's in our brief and what he spoke in response to the earlier argument you would


because when you have a consent situation what has happened is that the privacy interest in the communications has been eliminated by virtue of the consent if there are two parties to a communication one of them puts that communication online


district court made a mistake already asking that this court use fresh eyes and look at the language because it covers an actress becker's is a person with awarded a contract


notion of aggravated assault one an attempted unsuccessful battery or what's called menacing and really we have the menacing portion of the statute at issue here to menace someone is it simply to brandish a


intent requirement for the official victim guideline i just a what i'm having trouble with here is that the courts that have looked at this issue in the past have looked to these common law


bicycle in that particular instance if we separate out the useful features and imagine it without the useful features there would be nothing left because all there was was undulating metal and taking away that metal would


by the record at the summary judgment stage they did not identify anything other than just in passing a few features of the skeletal model that could conceptually be separable from the model itself the


example now council is also focused on star athletic at star athletic and this case does not mandate reversal for two reasons st the reason that supports or even talking about star authentic and this case


more functional to have three red lights in the back or one blue light in front what is done with the use with the article is not is of no moment the question is whether the article itself has an intrinsic utilitarian function


you know there are going to be juveniles who when they come up for parole they're going to be denied because they aren't you have military that they're the rare juvenile in corrigible and we can't release them but for the vast majority of juveniles


what she was pleading to so they're kind of related right and they are you are they are but we did use the allen female and standard the three part test that counsel just laid out for you and we do it that the intent was a critical element here we


so confusing no one can understand it and it doesn't adequately notify people that they're dealing with the recklessness standard or just to be absolutely clear that the government nor do i think of this is a game or midsized as life as a game or something


the plain language of rule thirty two h by failing to provide specific notice as to the grounds the court was contemplating for it to increase sentence and second that the district court erred by failing to state reasons for the degree of the


there are many other factors in this case as well that support of finding of voluntariness the defendant here was an adult at the time of the confession he had a high school diploma and some college education didn't finish college i


would on reasonably create the need for the use of deadly force and and do not need to have some authority some ten circular supreme court authority with


federal jury instructions from the lethal th and instruction that used there was only minor modifications and the court gave that instruction in addition to that instruction are the record the judge also gave a number of


pointed to a specific victim and said this victim suffered financial hardship it was more of a global well we have these victim impact statements and in we have we have this information and so


refer to nurse hernandez at all there can be some indirect reference but the reason i'm going to preclude him from actually using her name is because i don't want the jury confused testimony about weld county with any implied testimony that nursery and is was


comes back and engages in further criminal conduct in the united states i think the most recent episode is is very telling two thousand and thirteen convicted for illegal reentry the exact same events he committed in this case he gets a twenty one month


hundred eighty eight shortly after the implantations she began having some of the difficulties which multiplied and became different symptoms in ninety one in the ninety two and


hospitalization that question was never asked in fact she says you know i just want to real quickly go back to the forfeiture point so the statement is not one of these plaintiffs has any connection nexus the state of michigan yet defends try to use michigan law primarily


which was cited the discovery rules that was and declared by opposing counsel and i can read that is what was in effect in the discovery rule was


case involves product liability action out of michigan and it focuses primarily and michigan risk utility test the risk utility thomas is divine defined with six elements


hundred two they were very concerned about that and that was one of the reasons why they included that language in five hundred seventy eight c when included under the excise tax section so to me that was the


the causation standard with it i think is a little different what's direct what's sufficient direct evidence to establish a primacy from a facial case is a different issue of what the definition of direct evidence is it may be the


douglas as her circumstantial evidence and because it's circumstantial it pings back and forth because the ultimate decision is whether the improper discriminatory motive was what but for the reason for the employment


i'm sorry i know what was the question at regus or whatever in the name of their cases did they discuss the case with the prosecutor inbred vance keep bensky hold on one moment your honor and i will all this happened outside the door of the guys apart


when they were called there and haul them away if i understand it correctly yes i do not believe that here we have a situation where the guy comes in the police are sure what to do they go to the prosecutor that's a good thing right absolutely prosecutor puts him under oath to see if


anything else that is in the record number to judge can and mediately upon hearing what's happened his immediate reaction is how could this happen felony defendants get better process than these people just got


period which is after a someone has been arrested but before there have gone to a hearing but that it direction was after this incident so the argument that was made below in which we maintain on appeal


that part of the case i say point it seems pretty innocent and you know the agency what's it called the farm service agencies explanation for not giving any reduction in the penalty references one


eight because it meant that there was going to be an emergency financial manager appointed and that's exactly what happened earlier that unless something changes they would continue to be deficit spending


budget and emergency manager could be appointed which would basically be another takeover of the district the emergency manager assumed all powers of the board or members they're not


had this audit company working on it and they didn't give the report on current sometime in two thousand and was part of it great city schools i think it was and they were looking into the district and they


when everybody knew that they were getting the insurance sort of to back up the loan because they were the company was told it was a performing loan at the time that this letter was written the fact is that i


judge definitely says that this person was remarkably white and then says that probably sounds bad so the district judge himself is realizing that he is going in


defendants in this case clearly show their specific intent to commit murder in this particular case that cross reference is applied in cases like bart where the court found that the attempted murder cross reference was applicable where the


is applied based on the actions that occurred outside of vehicle when definit banks fired a shot fired shots at the victim paul as he jumped over the fence in order to obtain his vehicle the case law was clear that


one glance at the closing arguments in this case if you were just to randomly put your finger on a page of the closing arguments in this case the chances are very good probably something like two to one or three to one or one to two one to three that you will hit upon the


to know how important these statements were to the case and so the prosecutor listened to the statements understood they were devastating because they were all over the place they were inconsistent with each other they were inconsistent with the physical evidence at the scene and as a


supports your respective positions can you tell me why our police are wrong in relying and yes well i think the black case is they actually did indicate in that case there was there was reliance on assurances that there would be indemnity and in the black case


sometimes they find things that need to be corrected sometimes they don't more often they don't and this time period is nothing unusual about that and that fact that that that the biggest subject to that kind of regulation was disclosed and more importantly what was i'll say again some specific criticisms i'm sorry


the tapping was flawed from the inception and the defects as to the first order which is the predicate upon which the subsequent orders were entered were was would in fact everything that followed at the same time


around that she was going to become a recruiter and get pharmacy business for him and earn i think four thousand dollars a month to she could bring in two hundred patients yeah she didn't do that and


the doctor was taking kickbacks then the nigger manipulate anything and so you also have this false the really what it's all about medical necessity i mean it really is and the fact is my wife patel's method in this whole operation


so we had trout testimony about these pharmacies not being profitable without the corruption and fraud and if you accept that they were profitable without the corruption or fraud then the twenty five percent figure is very conservative


responsibility and in particular we cited i think it's the rouge area case which is out of this circuit in that case the defendant there was a question about relevant conduct to the extent of relevant conduct i believe that was


because she found that the defendant did everything possible to minimize his conduct he did so continually not only that he denied significant part of his behavior not only that he tried to conceal his role these are all


denying the award for acceptance of responsibility layered on top of that which clearly underscores so the court did not clearly errors as obstruction of justice and hansen that ordinarily renders


at least during his proffer would have been able to identify what mr produce because produce goes roloson and just the opposite mr rodriguez tells tells both the prosecutor if he or she was there but more importantly law enforcement during his


at that point this is what they knew they knew mr bell was present in a high crime area then he was walking down the sidewalk they knew we had a bolt in his pocket and they knew he had clutch the bolt when they exited their vehicle that is the state of facts


amount of time and work that spun the case by dennis stepper prior to the referral which we believe that the fiber firm with the referral agreement is entitled to credit for and payment for in quantum narrowing the fire firms work on the case during its two and a half years of representation


because there was some testimony that that he didn't do that for a minute so that gets you it twenty five of the time of the shooting and thirty seven when kennedy says the m m r is still treating scary


consistent with security and the security issues here schools are he wasn't fighting he wasn't going anywhere he wasn't talking to him he wasn't getting up with a knife in his hand to threaten them it's just different than piers


birds is that is the only protection against going to prison for some parent who does that just the discretion of the prosecutor no i know if you had that case we would throw it out if that case was


labor that would be in order to avoid deportation well i think it's part of a larger scheme that this that this defendant had in mind certainly they were not allowed to tell anyone where they came from when child protective services into marriage and most illegal immigrants told their


other indication that what the defendant who person ultimately was doing was illegal sorry your honor galaxy's just stands for the proposition that


but certainly in that case they wouldn't have to wait to to do something about it until they can establish whether he's got a permit or not i would agree that at the point the ok has a gun that they can seize the firearm and determine well that for safety


testified at her probation violation hearing that back at the time of the adoption she had no interest in these animals and why it a stops the plaintiff and not the defendants in this case is when you look at the elements of judicial stoppel


not the issue before the court on the issue before the court i'm just asking you the question whatever the issue is before the court whether you think that the project here or grant your project the growth of the


the evidence fails to show that mr chen in this case knew that these were trade secrets because again the trade secrets were not mark he was external to the corporation he was an electrical engineer in the field he was a professor and he knows that the information is


was preserved here there was an in women a motion filed early on the defense prevailed there was an interlocutory appeal to by the government the defense prevailed and when there was a case came to trial the government debt dumped a


don't admit that there wouldn't have been a right to proceed without the emergency manager act to change the health care coverage of the retirees in this case because


i'm not sure whether chapter nine of the federal bankruptcy code allows the creditors to move into bankruptcy it is necessarily if you don't pay them are posing bankruptcy i'm


and everything else so with that i would just if the court has any questions be happy to answer them but it's not believed that this were confined if there was any of use by judge wapner reaching his decision and it certainly was not against the manifest


short period of time she ends up in the emergency room and at that time she gives birth at least there are i think three different histories and that initial emergency room when one says may twenty that's not that there she testifies


requirements representative of the lawyer to whom the grievance should have been submitted and significant in this is huge whether the union followed the agreed upon steps of the grievance


certified course now as are extended to all other survived person now twenty four thirteen didn't give benefits to all other certified person out they were restricted to administrative personnel


evidence before trial and this was a very short trial this was the first day of trial it wasn't like a long trial where the court had to weigh you know judicial economy or starting over in the expense of a lengthy


so we're just stuck with this conflict specially if the sky it's i suppose picking up on mr hoffman's point it's hard to believe that the


happened and there's no indication that they tested substances separate whether it was even possible so every individual was test there's no discussion of that


standard that has not been adopted in illinois and it should be in this appropriate now let me give the claimant credit for having a


and that may not be used to circumvent the personnel code


hundred two of the international property maintenance code because it for provides for any person agent operator firm or corporation having a legal or an equitable interest


plants one for water and the other five for power there are bridges roads railroad boat ramps and each house and camps all located around the lake like springfield for the purpose of that is


of six cycles of therapy and it is the theory which caused the death there's no question but then the u s to very quick question earlier which is how do we know when this has become toxic in the


happened he knew there were everybody was behind him he was the leader he said he always was the leader so we alleged that he failed to indicate that he was slowing as a one of our specific


had on the back vehicle that not have an agreement commit tortious act one racing down the the roadway passing each other back and forth they hadn't said let's race or let's fly down the road


way that is in the favor of the guarantor if you do all that in this case the salaries did not guarantee the beggar's notes and possibility re second kluge from the face guarantees so


debtors obligation the new debtors obligation replaced the original better topic i understand that you're arguing but i'm having heard very much we're upping my grade


that it would be done on any other terms that's my trouble understanding the justification when they've never dealt with this before they had this one contractual experience the shipper say let's do it again and i'm just


a written agreement between the defendants and harold miller the defense and harold miller went way back together flying together working together they worked on the s t s contract and developing that s t s contract together the mere fact that the


father in illinois however he testified also out that's not a good enough replacement for the was the most face time i have to get with my clients and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to travel two times a year from


but nowhere in his report does he have sas any of the recommendations at the g a o regarding the children's preferences you know nowhere does he have sas the cia under best interests requires we


with a felony and that's just wrong you can't do that you can't you can't says since based on your belief and in this case pretty clear that given the judge's comments


which means they haven't performed a management duties was the seventeen thousand eight hundred dollars for the newer spreader type distribution of product whereas if we measured damages just from their enrichment it


with child support now i can't swear to that unfortunately i was a little bit probably too focused on the legal issues and not not the facts that caused the legal issues and that


can counsel what is the situation let's assume that he is contradicted so what is the situation regarding it as far as a jury trial is


your even the opinion of somebody else but our position is that mrs o did not do a very good john in trying to establish what the fair market value was actually acknowledge this is replacement cost this is not fair market value i did go to one option


child's identity is important and it's in her best interest to be with her grandmother she has significant background in ties cultural and from lawyer to grandmother she has a sense of attachment to a grandmother the child actually feels love with grandmother you know we've done a permanency


so i think that the language of the statute is clear and because this situation is not provided as a basis for revocation and you have an existing district that continues to this then you have to look


this is part of it this is an example like it but a thousand follow it's exactly like he tries to make decisions between well under change in family status you don't have control what you do we change jobs you have the right to negotiate the benefits you have


that the that the commercial property was in fact merrill we have cited various arguments in our brief to support that you know that the emissions are controlling and that really should be denied


personal efforts contributed to the increase in the value of stock


knowledge had no type of employment did not seek employment until shortly after that thirty month period ran it's our position that the employees in action by not even seeking work should not


why equitable relief should be granted are of course in opposition to the argument that he should continue to receive those benefits and in our conclusion there were a number of issues decided in


he was essentially stopped for speeding it was no weaving no drifting he didn't cross any ling markers he stopped appropriately pulled off appropriately there was no erratic driving noted whatsoever the


so there's not that doesn't and things if that's what you asked asking it's my understanding that things move forward to a best interest hearing on the bakers adoption petition and those entities that are parties to that petition or


court and it was also presented to the trial court in the form of the attorney's motion for funds first second expert but it was never presented to the court in the affidavit or testimony from


that it's not a bargain who's going to who's who's going to exercise all the supervisors and managers there's no one i mean this is the last one standing


statutory and common law professions it did not go to the actual reality it did not look to what was in the factual record and in this case there's no real


standards is no different than throughout state local government where you hear off employees represent for collective bargaining purposes to counter with an employee another employee who makes you feel superior to them in the line of reporting but


good should we expect to police officers at night thirty on a monday night ask every perfect question you know ok but only one other hand we've got to do a little bit better than put him in one car he


summarize the entire police investigation here's a like crazy and that was by agreement because the facts of the case are not spew it's a lot but one of the things that happened in the pretrial


we all focused illegal including drugs on the concept of tension and we supposed to split and say ok if you killed the person and you were under l s d it


make a new broad new rule that all employees who carry out policy or carry out duties of an agency or managerial such an argument would exclude almost all public employees it's managerial it's almost up with employees carry


going through and basically holding that the why did you see a property would not have qualified for these very reasons that i had a requirements for saying take it out it's a necessary component of a continuum of services when you have


specifically tied


the scheme of was that we have in illinois the teen age who doesn't apply where you have a thirteen year old who is incapable legal way of giving consent the defendant knew her age the way i understand the evidence in the case


one one three the government must prove each and every elements beyond a reasonable doubt and in this case the proof of f b i see insurance which is required was not met that burden was not met and it can't be just infer or supposed by a


legislative bill to change the organization of these entities somewhat and as a result placer county had no further all the control over this they provided some extra fish


volumes sometimes of progress reports they are not review by by the county jail staff and they can't be it's impractical there are hundreds of people in county jail in any given time there are dozens in the lake county jail


they have to have a photograph taken yes but the issue is in terms of the makeup they need to whether there's discretion about how to apply the makeup the women and only women have to do that


we pray and we pray for the are too great we went to church she made clear to me that my sexual orientation and lifestyle was incompatible with her religious beliefs yes and that's it and


eldred had been lying through their teeth about his alleged sexual harassment it's what the employer reasonably believed at the time that made its decision with respect to the job action that that's important so even if we might have differing


v that was an insecticide case where people didn't rush to get a product out there and the result of that was that they failed to register the product with the department of agriculture people skip steps in order to


measuring the effect of the debtor of the transfer the effect on the debtor of the transfer what the trustee is proposing has nothing to do with that i would like to reserve


with the brief time that i have i'm obviously not going to be able to get into a lot of the details of those appeals but i want to start briefly about its significance since the dollars alone would not probably show that but i hope that the panel here will take


say now those were not at issue in the state conceding cannot he bring in a challenge to the statute in respect to these


testimony testified that he had no reason to believe that if gibson had stayed in business that it would not remove everything out of the tank so the first prong that the court had to show on the causation was that the shell shipments issue were


from some undisclosed source of funds but we have not recovered assets that should be applied to the one point three million dollars judgment that would even begin to satisfy that we do know that and i will say this the other


all the other seven had had minimal recollection the newspaper articles or the television or radio coverage all of them all of them so that they could


do i'm not sure that the government i'm not sure that's just my that's right were employed only to try him at some point ninety eight the government appeared to take the position the petition had to be filed


is manslaughter or should i follow the majority i think the reason i think it's impossible to know what my conscientious belief is i'm not likely to ask people whether i should hold onto it it's if i don't know if i'm shaky or changing


party which is so small that the judge abused his discretion


plaintiff's attorney father another class action complaint in the district of nevada with a new named plaintiff and that's the class action that has been going forward although he has subsequently withdrawn a class action allegations but in addition to


each and every day i don't know exactly where these teachers work there's an allegation that they were that hasn't been looked into in detail the aides


policy i think the decision is correct because there has been a resolution of the issue of total disability because that issue is that i mean i'm not i'm not quoting the total disability i'm talking a part full disability and under partial disability it looks


lose i would agree to an extent but he doesn't have to be working full time the understanding is he can be working part time but in your view yesterday working in order to collect residual disability benefits that's correct and


decision the arbitrator's decision was that the university in my opinion didn't take into account sufficiently enough what i believe in motivating factors that his


officer conan was very clear to people that he was bracing himself people leave but he was about the latter and with the blood of the man who was on the ground he believed that that the firing of the weapon was


forum if it's not a content based regulation but we do submit that where the restriction on the park is not ok you can't go in the fark after five o'clock that it's these people can't go in the park unless they say that is an identity


an independent assessment of whether defendants violated federal law that is the case here as well your honor they are the only evidence of a just and reasonable rates will be a first finding on that subject we we


reiterate five point five specific acts that mr feldstein was involved in and these did not come out at that these were indirectly addressed at trial but were not directly pointed out in our brief one of which is is that


for political purposes in the original filing you raised the statute of limitations with respect to the federal coins right


this case accordingly the district court erred in not construing narrowly the doctrine as required by ninth circuit and supreme court precedent in favor of exercising their article three subject


every case that's filed and basically the last time super monitoring power over all these potential partner lesions cases and it seems to me that public policy and actual consequence of your position would


goes directly to one of the foreign policy initiatives announced in the eisenstadt report at the beginning of that report page one forward which is attached to to our


and i represent the appellee the order of priors minor our position is basically the same as my colleagues position i would just like to bring it


i guess i don't want to foreclose my imagination from working better later but unlike the state regulators do not sit too to hear cases like the one that we do that we filed in san jose typical enforcement of the agreements


that my minder standing in the final care doctor has has two ways two ways of controlling one is if the if the conduct is in the tariff and the other is if the statute requires it to be not just could it be but is required to be the


law exactly fits the contours of this agreement and therefore under california's fraud law where the jury will be allowed to do is implement the agreement if they wanted to make that argument the argument is you violated the agreement when they chose not to argue that it


and to leave this sentence which is the lower end of the guidelines the government's needs does not affect the fairness integrity public reputation so you can't make a third or fourth prong again i think the court i think


nifong told mr fry as her attorney thank you for giving me a copy of this order to show cause i will of course do what's appropriate and make sure that you have a hearing where you can defend yourself


caregivers who are doing this on her behalf but she cannot do it herself the other cases involve cooperative organizations that have been organized pursuant to california state law which provide medical cannabis for people under kind of california


there were several pfaff's that suggested that mr turner had not changed his down in south texas and both judge silver and judge bolton analyzed those facts the starting point was the


from this court though the court held that you look at objective facts and certain self serving statements are given very little weight the trial court both judge silver and judge bolton weighed all of these facts and made a determination and then


and the focus was the performance and the design of the roof structure and the seat belt want to roll over occurred and so that's a major distinction and how the statistics may or may not play into this in


decision was made to allocate the proof between mr hooper and mr johnson that decision turned out to be a poor one but that fact alone does not warrant reversing the trial court's decision the


the end or say things we've never heard and on the spot we're supposed to be able to effectively cross examine him go out in the hall talk to our expert witnesses waiting to testify say here's what cooper said can you do your calculations and


law well it certainly is a credibility of matter if something there for a rational jury could buy it and unfortunately my arguments to the trial goes to dismiss counts two and three or one of them as it as a doubling up under the also


you'd like to cite i can give it to you three sixteen that third at ten forty eight i what you have before you is a case that arose out of the district court in nevada where judge may


awkward way and i felt that the first thing i had to do was go back and seek relief from his order dismissing the case with prejudice because on a dismissal with prejudice what do i have to amend so that was a legal issue i thought judge me had it gone too far and that's why i


and say you can't use violent crimes that have to be defined under federal law congress didn't say anything about any jurisdictional limit on violent crimes if you think about it as a matter of common sense does it really matter if the mass murders committed on any one country or


wood look these are always tough and that's the problem then when you're put a magnifying glass on it it becomes difficult because people have lots of problems and they can still do certain things i understand that and if if this


court said that she found a pattern of conduct among all four that was the court's phrase they hadn't of conduct based on the record at trial and the record of sensing that established or when you give me the


and so in this situation we look at what words attorney did raise again he argued to the jury both in opening and closing and all the work had spoken with her own record label for time for station with a government agent talking about robbing a stash house he was simply being


three for damages in collection activities so there are other remedies and the tax court in this case did not have the primary ticket that it needed to have jurisdiction


regulations under that statute specifically speak to a situation where this final notice of intent to levy was not mailed to the taxpayer therefore sixty three forty three in the regulations under


courts here in this case we had a pro se who went to tax court truth there's procedures like these other administrative procedures but nonetheless he went to tax court at a time when


have to have some involvement in the brandishing for example in the kirkland case the defendant told the codefendant who was going to carry the gun into the bank don't worry you can shoot because this kind of a gun doesn't leave cartridges behind


strikes me as there's a certain redundancy in the indiana statute if if i mean indiana has said the put in fear means put in fear of bodily injury but


the system how is that data transmitted through the wiring the expert testified faulty wiring may be one of the things that causes a problem in the color master was part of the hench software right at stats correct


offset provision applies only to qualify plans mr banduk says that's qualified under the united states tax code only says that's not fair


and i really wasn't intending to go over that again right but i do have one other point for me with these thompson complete reset you know vacating the sentence full sentences actually of a couple points one is that i


doesn't mean what she's saying is not heard which saved the g d and everything but i'm not impressed i think she qualified by saying i did it at the time and i'm not going to consider what you're saying now and i don't know she she


evidence presented indicated that the district court should revisit the defendant's term of imprisonment and judge posner you've stated one of the areas where the district court said that there's another area where the district court says i have and this is


allocation and that was the case where this court determined that rule fifty two applies to elocution issues i will say that capice was decided in april prior to mr a few months prior to


and these instances of mistreatment are the very crux of his claim mr islam has here on early failed to show that the evidence compels a contrary finding and in


take great pains to say that there is a factual question that will be a battle of the experts as to whether it is comprehensible when your whole life your condition the only pay when you get off by the way the complaint says this is


law so congress expresses its intent very clearly and is this court found roberson this specific provision supersedes the much more general or as this court called it the very general provisions of thirty five fifty three a


done is taken on the market risk if prices go back up duke will be singing al ahluwalia it will be doing very well thank you very much and when to prices stay low than it takes that risk but that was the risk that was assigned if you interpret the contract the way duke wants you to


reason why that information isn't disclosed why that record administrative record isn't disclosed at the time and judge williams made an observation about arrests where at least you can go back and get the record it did come out during the argument


that doesn't cover the case you asked about so martin was decided i think after this happened is the government now at least in the northern district making a record in the district court about what offers were and were not


also mentioned by reference in section eight forty four which is the simple possession so simple possession is well i don't know i mean i think you're over reading it forty four a lot of it forty four is about saying you're allowed to possess controlled


i i can't fathom what more this man could have done so i'm going to run a parallel to another case that's what recently decided


well your honor that the applications themselves they're not for testimony your client wish to present was that agents didn't verify not testimony that they shouldn't verify or that they were required to verify it


conspiracy the handgun possession and the distribution counts for the conspiracy count when this court conspiracies it tends to do so and instances involving large amounts of drugs where there are multiple


turned out to be a fictional buyer a second quote from don you go on page seven seventy sixty seven seventy seven which is what i was referring to about reading for see ability out of the guidelines


part of it and we contend that the state appellate court mishandled that as well the reason is because instead of unreasonably applying the law it and recently determine the facts of the question it omitted parts of the questioning p c a that did


a person close to her was murdered the court but it gets her to acknowledge she goes well she acknowledges that that case have nothing to do with this particular defendant and then when asked directly can you judge mr wesley's case based on the evidence in the law she says yes or


sure and it's it's entirely understandable why she couldn't be sure that's not a very clear question and it's important to remember that jurors are not prepped for questioning the way that witnesses are they come in and out of out of the outside world and they're asked questions


dry run chance to plug holes in its case and legal scholars have warned that the availability of a second chance could encourage slipshod performance the first time or use of the first proceeding as a discovery


on good morning my name is julia christiansen and i represent dennis michael you can be appellant in this case i'll be talking about two of the issues that we raised primarily the miranda issue and the da better issue both of these issues suffer from


the workers compensation just because they file workers compensation the employee does not get a force field or an immunity from having to a comply with other regulations of the employer the best case that just came out of the seven circuit to point was the


as the last time she saw what was due to that data that your honor it is either april or may of two thousand and nine or april or may of two thousand and ten but the date is not strictly relevant mrs holt


august of two thousand and eleven i attached to the exhibit the list price now the list price is is off my website


point about the nature of chronic schizophrenia which is this court explained in brown defendants might have certain periods of lucidity but then that other moments be suffering from delusions or paranoia as this court said in the home someone might you know appear


there would be regulatory chaos but even if that were the case that would be something that i a faith would have to disclose in its privacy policy one of the requirements under reg s p pursuant to graham which bliley is that to the extent that


traditional pornographic pornographic materials would indicate you may have the advantage of the court i'm sorry i didn't so you may have the advantage of the court of your knowledge well i was in the military for a time i'm not going to


now the judge shouted in addition under as he stated his understanding of the requirements of the statute in regard to the focus on the genitalia when he said that there is no requirement under the statute to focus only on the pubic area just that there is a focus


because it creates a implicit need to find the intent and as i said during my primary argument as looking inside somebody's heart and trying to determine what their intent was the facts indicate


inappropriate but he's clearly says they were not racially motivated so that that statement provides him no comfort nor does it provide him any evidence to


provided that it is not discriminatory now in this case and i would like to point out that mr klinger the lead engineer that prepared the benefits analysis put in his report that's exhibit d to put in his report that


mistakes of the court previously identified it hired a professional engineering firm and applied a uniform methodology to determine the benefits to all the properties in the district the district court found as a matter of fact not just noticed criminal intent but also noticed from


you have to find that these cooperators are lying he admittedly doesn't say the word liar but when the government objects and says you call them liars he also doesn't say i didn't call them liars he basically concedes that it won't point he says i'm not calling them a


law was the stipulation that simply said mr nader wharton's terminated from his employment and he received no financial benefit after that day he took no further action and to answer the second part of the question what could he have done in the


no there there isn't much dispute at least what make a difference in this case i mean reading the government's brief gives me the impression that you are arguing that you would survive even if it were a substantial part in this case


the evidence was not know that some of the jury was instructed i mean so so there's some fuzziness there but it does doesn't seem like the five percent of the contract was phony and the other ninety five


wall yes the vacancy announcement first reference advanced materials the record is clear that mr easton who mr duckett says did not discriminate against him was the chief scientific and technical officer for the


nine individual defendants from that from from his time it be f d f whose dismissal we are appealing today there are only five against whom there are no allegations no specific allegations planted in the in the body


which of course is your prerogative there is no question that under the current state of the president the original judgment in this context is the date that prejudgment starts stops and posts judgment begins it is therefore the operative date for the twenty eight days with which


case i believe that's the argument secondary boycotting is not preach of contract secondary boycotting is secondary boycotting there is no rule it would be remarkable and i urge the court not to entertain and certainly not to


more than five kilograms of cocaine in other portions of the record and i don't think that this evidence with respect to the eighteen kilograms was so different from that evidence that there was that that there was taint in the remaining cocaine evidence


out several those cases of page twenty three of our brief there are disputes here about whether or not the plaintiff efforts to exhaust technically complied with every step of the you ministry of directors and i would respectfully disagree your honor that it's not clear


would be the prudential for this court to not issue a decision in this case until the mandate does issue in jones and while i agree with mr martin's characterization of how the mandate works i think that the mandate is stayed pending buckles which we expect will be argued shortly and may be


indication of the guidelines here will she consider them as she was required to do and properly did they were not the primary driver behind her ultimate sutton's indeed i mean this is page seventy four after she finished calculating the guidelines she said


couldn't he have come to the conclusion that on that maybe misunderstood his lawyer and that and that in fact he he was going to have the and the benefit of the i


section one zero eight to consolidated groups those regulations were the same ones in effect when prudential wines was decided the tax court read united dominion to declare that no part of the consolidated not praying


that had to do with whether we were able to maintain contact with each other which we were not for exigent circumstances but the fact remains that when he filed the pro se complaint the pro se complaint was on the form provided him by the district


the morning richard reeves on behalf of anthony lewis i would like to briefly address the first issue that was raised and then focus i think largely on the second issue which obviously


people arguing that if a person has been sentenced to who for two crimes that form a same sentence that one of them should fall because changes in view of or might happen that happens all the time that


sudden she gets excluded from the from the board meetings and so the men are being treated differently than the women there is marin's behavior the comment about we don't want eighty percent of the company in this girl's hands


was judged by his let me start there if i may with that with the prior question of the standard of review so we address this in the opening brief and got back to it in the reply both we rely on this court's precedent and a very similar


was done only chronically i mean where is the evidence that what was done electronically was at his initiative rather than something that happens like a stock split where merrill lynch tells you you now have two shares worth half as much as each share was


client lied about my contact you're going to have a very difficult time all right thank you let's hear from your adversary


even putting aside the prosecutors


not letting up on here and he's persistent couldn't have a reasonable jury concluded he kept there's no evidence that he got to her she never said that he got to remember your honor there's


a multi unit condo that also served other multi use buildings that's it j two zero three and there's a photograph it three seven seven at the time he arrived all that ice agents knew was that he was a latino man arriving there and they immediately seized it and they said who are you


pajamas were basically a shorts and a t shirt that he wore to bed his affidavit says he has his testimony was that the agents searched the car and then arrested him or handcuffed him


who has no knowledge of the facts we cannot simply make the assumption oh it's a public agency we must take it as true not when we have seen misstatements galore as we have seen here not one we see in transits


is the v countervailing view that simply because someone has a job for a long time doesn't mean they're the best qualified if you want to violate them based upon you know how they perform their job but i understand that and we're not micromanaging but someone


the charges but beyond that your honor i i do want to say a little bit about the plea agreement you know why don't you plea agreement i was interested in the fact that retreat is and his counsel didn't use an interpreter to


ninth circuit very plainly and persuasively laid out recently why in carrying the and they in doing so they joined the sixth circuit the only other court of appeals to directly address the prayer issue in a published opinion as well as the board who issued


heavy bias if you will for lack of a better word against arbitration they wouldn't argue applies it's only because it's the priority question i'm sorry so you're saying that it was an abuse of discretion and it was abuse of discretion


policies and see coverage under the century policies which i think is important but also goes to the broader part the broader point that this wasn't an effort to obtain coverage from anybody there was no request for coverage but certainly not from centuries


failed to carry his burden that there was a substantial possibility that he would that there would be a surplus in the bankruptcy case that could go to him using a reasonable possible thank you thank


them two hundred two hundred twenty million dollars there's no evidence and there's no representation of the trustees have ever made any effort to review the balance of the claims register to determine whether those claims are appropriate or not and until the january three


point on the claims was simply that up until january of two thousand and fourteen when this particular settlement was submitted there was no reason for mr le cotton to bring jackson's to claims and at that point he


that the trial wasn't set out in till may and so that he could squeeze it in that he didn't scream if the defense counsel said she could squeeze it in but the court's calendar was booked and the prosecutor also apparently had a busy calendar you pick a date in this


beginning he said i want to speedy trial i want a speedy trial in context without realizing that that was going to preclude him from raising any issue with regard to suppression he just didn't understand how it worked he kept saying i want to speedy trial


experience counsel saying i'm talking to him and he doesn't seem to appreciate what i'm telling him about his the facts and and say ok he can make a decision yes i want to go to trial i know that i'm


booked i can squeeze the said i always understood when i was a district judge that you had to squeeze criminal trials that they came before everything else and if the speedy trial clock was running you had to pay attention to that or the indictment would


have my house not because of anything that anything the defendant has done subsequently not because of bad conduct subsequent to me i now in him and revision think that three


warm and it seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of the proceeding and due to that incorrect calculation we submit it's unfair to


teeth of the video particularly after the case has been up to this court and resolve the wants is not enough and we're really back where we begin in the last appeal which is there is at best some ambiguity


subjected to an x party proceeding in an instance such as this where there is of a payment that's allowed to be made in full and a claw back provision from another governing body entity country it's hard to believe


well i don't think you can create in a receipt claim that easily for this reason because the underlying facts are that it was a ponzi scheme and if they had brought a


the difference it's different in that sense but on the other hand there is no other circumstance that would warrant a distinction here ok so did he said get out they should have got out but if you get past that


thirty five i'm sorry the last sentence of his answer so i guess my long roundabout answer to the court's question is no other than what has already been included in our briefing with you she's talking the last information and


continue to allege things that are inconsistent with what your client either knew or had a duty to invest your i respectfully disagree i'm saying this is this is the finding and i wouldn't be surprised if you disagreed oh you're on the evidence doesn't support


people any rational trier of fact could have found him guilty on the other hand under the actual innocence gateway it's a more lenient standard which is more likely than not a reasonable juror would have found guilty


what's the basis for placing on him the burden of proving his factual innocence of charged and acquitted conduct acquit all of those not just means that there was the jury believe the


destroyed or unavailable evidence would have been of the nature of alleged by the party affected by its destruction meaning that there simply has to be a prime aphasia showing that that evidence would have been helpful for the person asking for the instruction and in


to a lawsuit served on the wishes or the or the quarks or the thousands of other ohio homeowners who have the right even if they don't pay their mortgage or let it's alleged that they don't pay their mortgage to due process of law


that is indeed disruptive to have two different people questioning witnesses one of whom is not a lawyer or your honor and if we were to take that i would worry that that would go too far and then any


be season's motivation for terminating mr eisen bob's employment and then failing to rehire him and we are as counsel at the summary judgment stage why is this the whole


earth an appeal down the road in the second trial that we there's a little bit of a problem with that though because that's true in any case but we only have interlocutory jurisdiction for specific things i think that's right your honor and that's why


rules those bonds were negotiated in are they were your honor there were there were executed in all there were your honor there were seven separate bonds that the development at issue here was called queens gap it was a subdivision in north carolina


the claims here that your client wants to act on or for breach of contract basis to address the failure to pay the premiums on the bonds right there are two issues the primo


because the law governs the requirements here congress did not put the requirement into the act the law does not require it and the secretary the administrators improper signing of that of that standard in the complaint cannot


november sixth two thousand and seven that he was required that they believe that he was required to have an animal welfare act license sent him the statute the regulations and an application form all he had to do


thirty and so in order to make sure that we have adequate time to come up front that to the arguments and that's i have time to repair the courtroom for this afternoon's on bought it we're just going to have to hold


and i think i think getting back to ms above i think we're being too global i think that the court should say let's look at the actual


just a couple of points your honour's with regards to the how this case is different than in mine and it obviously does have some differences but one similarity is that the defendant in this case did ask


and her claims and her appeal against the department of administrative services i'd like to address four issues today first summary judgment standard the cat's paw theory adverse employment action and in the similarly


killen was driving under the influence at the time that he stopped and he developed that afterwards and i just since i have a minute left i do want to take a minute just to talk about the state cases because i do disagree


object it doesn't have to rise to a constitutional violation on the face of the jury instructions alone it merely has to rise to the point that they that but for those jury instructions there's a reason probability of the wrong jury instructions led to this conviction and defense counsel had


found that mr price based his decision solely on the fact that mr bailey challenge the supervisor to tangle with them and not based upon whether mr connelly who was the supervisor to whom those words were said felt


morning your honors and may please the court for on behalf of the hilltop companies judge cooke i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal make thank you your honors an obligation to arbitrate claims is presumed to survive


typically we look at the nature of the dispute for that and this is one where during the term of the contract this and there's no question that your clients were required to arbitrate anything relating to their terms and conditions of employment which would include overtime right


again it's not in the records so i won't i won't go onto it but but clearly there are ways to to to match it but it will match and again that came up in the that came up in the


thank you i am struck by the fact that my client bought the policies before he bought the house the state farm is


your view of the way this works change in law always works as long as it's combined with something else not always works but change in law may work if it's combined with other extraordinary circumstances what it what is


affidavit he refers to a police informational summary number thirty eight of d n a testing results do you know what that's about is that stuff that was done long after or what was that my understanding that it was done


again your honor and thank you for the rebuttal time several matters in terms of looking at the distinction first of all it's not just the issue of the facts that came across the


what was accidental was the accident they point to the basis for liability and the best case we have for that is the qualcomm case which says even if there's property damage sort of in the air that doesn't change the nature of the claim that's what you have to look at


exclusion posted and then support for that exclusion as to why it was denied there's no medical to there's been no medical authority whatsoever consulted as a reader as part of its review what they did is


turner was out drinking heavily that he was stumbling walking into chairs falling down before he drove home that night and passed away and so there is overwhelming evidence as to his intoxication that really isn't


terminal and drafted warrant you definitely said to those who were drafting the warrants not to include the information about these injunctions because we are aware that they are the state and since we're the state we can't let the judge know that we are are barred from seizing


illegal the manufacturer simply tweak the software and you start back at ground zero which is why the general assembly had tried to do things like put limits on the amount of prize money that one can win when playing the machines


cite to that point in my brief that i do raise the issue that he was not on that point you mention it as a fact but you don't you don't raise it as an issue for us to decide the issue you raise is there's an old no probable cause which


information in its report saying these cases are to be compared to cases like antitrust cases and other cases of similar complexity are there any pending surveyed by the district court do you think or within its discretion are


appellant has characterized is permissible and you know for us to indorse consider right if we determine that those that there were impermissible considerations


including one firm by this court in the neon case was think around four hundred dollars an hour and there may have been two affirmed along those lines in the in the in the last six seven years or so and so all of those were in front of the


decision for the government to come in and say the minister of what i just did not accept what he said exactly so you're equating contesting with offering group no no it doesn't say that i'm that you contest


she admits she was at a place that looks like the days inn it seems to me at that point you have more than enough probable cause to get the warrant for those rooms so why wouldn't you say inevitable discovery i'm really amazed that the court


the male section of the jail it's not the female section it's a joint session of the jail and then also the medical department obviously houses both male and female inmates so it's not that this occurred somewhere in the in the male portion of the jail where only male


days in my head pathetically that's only loosely based on your complaint here the rest of the time you simply then refer to people as the guard or the guards that's adequate in your estimation to avoid dismissal


that they lied there were several cases cited by state farm that had that set of facts or you know mr harrison's strongest case i gave you the parker case this is a great