immigration we know what she did say that they entered five and i think that i have to answer to that one your honor i would say the fact that they entered five which is what has to be assumed is true and she assumed is true i also assume there are adults who can tell time that was


hearing there would be an opportunity for ice officers to present testimony and there'd be an opportunity for miss eunice marcus to cross examine them and to present her own testimony she's been denied that opportunity on the ground that she didn't even make out a prima


remanded for a hearing about whether she was really mentally retarded i have to say that the hearing officer ruled against us on that in the end but there was i was some of it was substantial evidence either way or another really was reorganized didn't even slower but that's what happened we didn't we didn't we didn't appeal that because there was substantial


to and there's an affidavit saying we were instructed not to pursue that placement by defendant lycee so and at the end of the day


findings that the factual findings of the district court in order to change what it did or said where whether an area falls in the home kirklees hands on for factor assessment and he made findings in perspective each this is the areas that are used and how they're


insurance and other sources is a matter we have been advancing since two thousand and eight we have had discovery on these issues repeatedly compelled though never produced the banks will take a dismissal or attorney's fees against them rather than produce


complaint based upon what we knew to be true to include those provisions from the affidavit which wouldn't be required in the maryland system to include provisions from the pooling and servicing agreement which talk at length about the obligations on the part of the


and courts have parent authority in managing their caseload and residual authority under a one to respond to revel isness without having to go through every prior opinion to see if the


arguing about today he quit filing for seven or eight years and then when he was appointed counsel we started briefing this he is refiled eight new lawsuits in federal court in the last year and a half this is why the strikes exist and that's my argument i don't want


just setting a record everything it's exactly the opposite direction from everything congress intended nineteen fifty you may want to know or gee and the whole collection of statues of


he has every opportunity to behave himself in prison so he can qualify for release when he turns age sixty and i'm with you about your inference in that last question


additional growth would be in this localized area the gravity model


employment of the road but there's there's no evidence that that was done all that was done was to remove the influence of accessibility and mr slawson mentioned while


error we win and that was the pitch and in addition there's this due process claim so i think they are independent obviously you know thematic lee and how it worked there you know they're linked because they're both you know that they're linked in that sin the narrative


the defendant used actual force or constructive force in accomplishing his or her task would you actually argue in your briefs that the robbery in south carolina can be accomplished through the minimus force was it that i may


want to speculate but those instructions are gone and we can't seem to get i haven't i called and i couldn't get an answer exactly why they were taken down i hope the others are still charging yuri's


indirect way through other witnesses it was your honor and that was that was admitted because it was an appropriate evidentiary ruling but it wasn't admitted as a remedy for the constitutional


an additional level of hearsay this e mail from the witness was not properly authenticated for two reasons your honour's first the evidence showed that e mails that were sent


erroneous instruction so just to say i did the two different been from your perspective not meaningfully at all the only difference i suppose i think what he is pointing to is that in one of the instructions and i want to thing


either through this informant or they handed it to them would it really matter if like in one case you know they walk two blocks to give it to him in another case they drove to give it to him one way or another they gave him the drugs i do think it's significant the difference here


two different conspiracies and that they were properly tarnished in the eastern district of virginia and then properly charge in the western i sure don't i don't have the same question i just want to make sure i understood your answer so everybody knew what everyone else was doing in this case the western district was fine with the


it please the court the district court's cursory proceedings in this case had no basis in the federal rules of civil procedure or the governing case they reached an incorrect and unfair result and mr custis


some cases yes and it appears from our understanding to be a requirement to and so we'd be happy to submit supplemental briefing on that we do think it's a base problem here and it's not a pleading requirement and so requiring an inmate to attach


that you fronted your honor we do think that there is reason here to look back at anderson and the whole to a spontaneous missile process as a whole you don't have to do it too fine for mr custis here to remain on to the district court because


couple points i want to make that are really important here first we're going the role case the government suggested that that was the most instructive case before and we agree the similarities there were actually much greater than there was here in raul that we're all headed


is whether the district court was authorized to use the same criminal history category and had applied at the original sentence seem to calculate appellants amended guideline range under thirty five eighty two the same question was presented to the


because in early february twenty third seen the defendant files and he files to prostate motions the first of which was to represent himself because he was


regulation that the government wants stop holdin the subpoena so this case is very interesting i've never encountered one like this in thirty five years of representing people representing the i r s or representing clients outside of the i r s where the government is saying


loses their job that's what de three b is there for so the fact that the exception applies to taxpayers who go sideways and not to liability syndicates that see forward does not apply to liabilities second


defense attorney keenan should provide a court before final sentence is imposed the government in its argument against cohen having counsel is talking about


this court the exclusive venue in which questions of law constitutional questions can be raised it's when you look at the statutes as notwithstanding any other provision of law


and so this court would never get to to review something like an issue that comes up in a visa petition issues that come up in these a revocation and so


proceedings she entered under the visa waiver program and under that program it's sort of an easy way to come into the country without a visa but it's also a pretty swift exit out of the country there's no judicial review of a remove


regardless of whether or not it prevailed


residual plaza is johnson none of the other cases have done this and in fact james was in place and entirely for clothes that claim it just takes away any gatekeeping provisions of behavior statute no your honor because this is a very unusual


it please the court i would just very briefly respond to the government's argument on the intent the government has certainly established that robinson made numerous and serious threats to crawford in this case


reasonable doubt because they would they would have failed that the government's failure to meet as a burden of proof i still see that you can get around that no matter how you talk about that about witness and i agree as to south carolina folks just


claim here is the johnson claim and they authorized the successor petition based on the johnson claim and then whether or not something actually qualifies under the remaining force clause is a prejudice inquiry it's not subject to the twenty


understand the relief that was granted is it that this ordinance may no longer be enforced going forward against these mixed groups or is it just that the two thousand and fourteen order is void do you know what he did what he did is he


enforcement action it's been approved by the board is there a landlord in town who doesn't know today that you can't do this mixing now they knew it from newspaper articles from explanations issued by the city they knew it before this but they definitely know it now i mean for


think brings it before you as something that's not moot and secondly you know the city is not aware of what adams housing is doing or how many you know tenants it might have in one house


police would be a test person too strong of a word but a chance to resuscitate what is the likely outcome by saying we now need discovery although we did not need discovery prior to knowing the likely outcome of this case and i think that's a


along that general path is it's very very difficult based on the facts that we have at our disposal or reasonably could get at the time this


acknowledged there is no question but that mr marino toppy is case at state court level was defective well the question before this court is ok so he has a constitutional invalidated conviction he has a a expedited review with


for convictions obtained by constitutional defect in the context of the guideline enhanced however that referenced does not refer to the holding but to a footnote specifically


least one severe impairment or combination of impairments that severe but once that showing is made the evaluation proceeds to the next steps and wish to claim it must prove either that her impairments are medically so severe to be


were spencer was not always there and he was not always jointly undertaking that activity regardless of his physical presence this is the relevant conduct analysis that this court requires need to be there i agree or that's that's i'm sorry i thought that's what i just said but he does


gauges in what would be more properly described as a kind of jackson versus virginia you know sufficiency of the evidence analysis he says look at all this evidence of barker's guilt and he then goes through all the governments have a chance he doesn't cite any of the


something there's been too many cases to this week so go ahead and i could if i could add in on the same point it's really gotten to the point as far as i'm concerned when i pick up a brief from your office i'm looking for


case dozens and dozens of boxes a bank records and everything else and here there were these four documents which unfortunately the a usa had placed not in the basement with all of the other stuff but had placed in


instruction i would point out that the defendant did not specifically request an accomplice or informant instruction what they asked the court to do is provide an instruction specific to somebody who was facing sentencing


crime that they charge when you beat someone to within an inch of their life and i mentioned earlier i've read all these cases i read it the brits only see if you commit this crime is couple of things i didn't find any i have a giant excel spreadsheet of all these cases


all and that's what we're starting here the reason the only claim at trial was a claim for wrongful death and that was after a long history that your honour's are well aware of and


the order of removal should not be considered at this stage and again in london the court recognized the only remedy if you want additional information to be considered is to file a motion to reopen back with the agency for them to consider very considerate it wouldn't change the result there


i don't have the benefit of agency expertise on that question but i can say sometimes there will be a new reports with more torture in them or another seemingly significant word i wouldn't say that that would be irrelevant to the conclusion but there's certainly nothing in that report that would require


applicable so the order that was entered effectively ruled on whatever was pending before the court including the no proton order allowing the


i'll call it is i read in the sort of the poor pro se twenty two fifty five amendment i feel like i can sort of tease out of that document a modified categorical approach argument you read sixty motion he's clearly


was never called to testify mr b v was a cooperating coconspirator kate did testify and did testify as to miss kristen's participation in the drug conspiracy to the extent that mr miller argues that lack of information


there's got to be a pretty powerful reason at least speaking for myself before we step down the road of asking them to do our work for us right and i'm not asking them to do your work on this case but to


authority we believe that it is a very important point that your honor and judge carnes and judge williams when they're on the district court had and now have an air of authority and the cases say


and indicated that the regulators were going to be looking at the specifically as residential coverage the honor irony is these borrowers will have then have no remedy in court but they're saying is your out you have no ability whatsoever it is


of those parties before the court what we have our loan use a hypothetical i understand that ok all right well the answer would be no there would be no claim because the and bank opinion in taf it


triple the before amount of the settlement charge so there was no need to parse the rates and in the settlement charge part of the approved rate it is the entire rate it's of course the entire full you're challenging the rate yes under


issue of fact for the jury just but he'd need to deny that the allegations made against him were true he needs to deny that he was doing the things they allege he was doing but he said if he says no disturbance whatsoever


dollars valuation he was placing on the home that was worth about one million dollars yes that was mr cupples testimony is that pretty good indication that he's told by the appraiser who is someone who knows about real estate that is grossly


response relating to american greed and to judge boggs point you know if we were to allow that question is there any reason you can't be fair and impartial to allow post verdict interviews for basically anything a juror smiling coming in a


of how they met which again starts the whole concern about a dispute that they met no what does it matter how they met because they met at another home health right and i thought they were somebody else that talked about them working there


permitted to vote he was still permitted under florida law to own a gun he was not a convicted felon at that time based on the prior conviction that we're talking or the prior offense that we're talking about today would his whatever you call it no law guilty


engaged in repetitive criminal conduct under the guidelines ends up suffering a more significant sentence because of their past criminal conduct in this case there's a finding that he engaged in past criminal conduct what you're saying is that that can't be taken


into account under aca it's as if he never committed the crime not only is that what i'm saying your honor that's what the supreme court said in both the cop and tailor the doctor doesn't use the term finding uses the term conviction and even though this


that prevented him from come back after the judgment was entered well that's exactly what he did when he filed additional pleading saying i'm getting no treatment plan for sleeves no treatment but those documents were in the course i mean i'm speaking in terms


am mindful of the court's admonition against excessive legal imagination and implausibility and so in these two cases i am demonstrating to the court that these have been found to be deadly weapons in florida state


but i don't know and now that there's something something i've read where domestic violence waiver does not apply flies to some things but i thought it didn't apply to child abuse but maybe it's child sexual abuse first is another child i'm sure you're not sure how it works here


challenge that your honor just to the point where he was offering mitigation in the form of his coming forward when his view he confessed and that was mitigating right but in terms of his background his schooling record says medical records met mental evaluation


but that's the closest case right that's probably the closest case you're on and i and i can see this is not an easy issue when we're dealing with the death penalty the machinery of death we're there's a tension between forever


the petition shall not may be accompanied by two copies it shall be accompanied by the filing fee prescribed by law or rule in civil cases in the circuit court unless the petitioner applies for and is


but the state trial court what would be under reasonable doubt that determination by the state trial court where you have four of five who


especially a senior audit manager which the record noted has missed both major bolt said was one of the lead people so she was simply laying out the fact she was doing what lawyers like myself counsel our clients to do layout the essential functions of


has a surcharge on coal production and that fund earns interest and as that interest a cruise on that fond of those interest payments at current market rates


p those five hundred seventy two retirees then move into the ninety two point zero k the the premiums that we were paying were for thirty two retirees covered by the combined fund


allegations of steering whether they should have been dismissed or not and tortious interference claims and it seemed to me there was there was a customer who told progressive she was taking her vehicle


admitted several times that the reason mr michael gave the he believed that she was intoxicated at one point he would use the word in the braided under the imprint under the impression that she was under the influence of


important issue it's such a big company it's such a new technology that the court should give it a chance that dean witter provides the court the power to give it and if we were going to entertain the your


pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter mr walker never lost his right to carry a firearm in new jersey as it relates to those


this pretty much any time you want are you in a position to explain to us why this wasn't raised before because you know even if it is jurisdictional and you're within your rights to raise it now it still does kind of stink and so to use a


because the chief of police is white and he was discriminating against white applicants but the testimony the jury heard was a week long it wasn't two days and i don't fault my co counsel for opposing also knowing that she didn't she didn't try the case with me at our did he did a fantastic


of what is the threshold that's crossed in which it causes harm but those are the two types of ways that they try to prove that the product was harmful and there was something common in terms of the claim about the warnings right the sufficiency


docket quickly yesterday trying to read different things is the colloquy before the instructions in the verdict form is there transcribed is yes yes it is yes i did find that in the rest and i would direct you particularly to volume three seventy


counsel said judge and it's my position dr feldman said judge it's my position that a curious instruction is not going to cure the prejudice and then mrs feldman's counsel said judge and this is spelman has the same position as this is a conspiracy


take in a lot less time in the government that would say that his testimony would be understood by the jury to mean that oxycodone alond it or methadone which i promise i'm not sure i understand what a sliver of testimony is but even when they went off the reservation a


feel free really to go to the heart of your argument with that will begin with us


recording in court


is try to insert prejudiced into the case this expert should not have been allowed let me let me you're raising now a slightly different argument the first argument as i understand it regarding the experts


under don't you think that statute itself provides some detail i mean not to the too fine a point on it but direct genital touching underneath the underwear or something i mean that's pretty specific well it's a definition of what


basis to suggest that the victim's memory was contaminated by the passage of time and the power of suggestion before you get that there are those notes and and if so then i think you have to have what was the basis for we did have


eight day letters that in fact it would probably result in manifest injustice mr karr by a was just a twenty year old first time offender when he was prez before the court convicted although violent crime


or distinction to the ambiguity contained within the two amendments to loan agreements which needed to be read together as we argued below your honor let me get into those two issues in greater detail most


honor at most that's an ambiguity that needs to be addressed because in our reading of the loan that's defined in that document it's very clear that it's referring to the post alone later in that same paragraph to the extent it


original argument we wanted to make a to the court about the significance of this particular provision which is that it never came into effect and never came into effect because we released the property because there were rights to just proceed against exclusively the borrower and not to look to third


egregious violation of the d p p and substitute it is preferences for those of congress congress has decided to protect driver's privacy whether a district court or this court believes otherwise


intoxication as an alcohol specific statute public intoxication includes not only our hall but also controlled substances and that's expressly stated in the language of the public


the model penal codes definition of public intoxication would not be public intoxication blocks all dictionary definition would not be public intoxication the texas definition would not be public intoxication it's far


with the secretary of state here this is a general partnership between cities of th cities of arlington and terrence county they have not registered with the secretary of state and their bylaws do not specifically align themselves with the state of


had discovered this case so if you don't know i don't understand why but other fund sources four one hundred and eighty six thousand one hundred and eighty five do you know what that is i don't know what that is but i do know that the county workforce solutions solicit private funding from private


think we're talking about sophisticated gun people here we're not talking about an in our a hunter we're talking about typically a drug dealer who's purchasing a firearm for self protection and there's not you couldn't look at the


discussed at length and and i think to question your honor it's very important understand the trial judge the answer is i think going to see the question you're saying did you ever essentially propose a charge that group transactions in the answer to that is no for example we did not ask


and that you got it not i don't see the process that you go through when you're trying to get something in the charge that you think is worth so many millions of dollars that you would submit it is a proposed bill where you would argue you make your offer prove


questions that should not be answered by affidavit and i don't think this court should lose focus on this particular issue we're not here to solve the matter of what exactly happened at the jail the question is whether there is


complaint also alleges that m c m relied on handwritten invoices presented by the lines for each of the transactions in the summary judgment of it all brings up this goes back i guess to the unclean hands and i understand your argument on it but what's in the record as to why your


yes if we exclude offenses that or that lack any way to litigate reasonable not reasonable ignorance of the defendant's age we will exclude a lot of statutory rape offenses


of qualified privilege ballpark privilege allows the employer when an accusation is made to do an investigation as an affirmative defense it requires that the employer demonstrate that the investigation was done in good


faith and that the statements that were made were within the the protection of this good faith statement now to defeat a claim the ball fight privilege you have to do


went from that how we went from the water fountain to the floor but there's not i can't hear what's being said so can you tell me what was being said at that moment our client says that he the


i get it after that point but the throw down to me comes out of nowhere and so help me with that i will is this court said context is important they had an active i would venture into discourse has never had a case where a


representative of dart and the police chief saying i distributed it i put it up where i usually put it up and then you have an officer saying well i didn't see it i believe that creates a least an issue that a reasonable juror could conclude it's otherwise there and then the question is would a reasonable officer


implicitly found that the mere fact that the right to photograph was not clearly established at the time of the turner decision as well as at the time of mr edelman's arrest does not mean that a person arrested for recording police lacks a remedy under the th


in this case i submit is overwhelming each of the three offenses before this court the instant offense and the november and april incidents involve very strikingly similar they all involve five elements they


available and hadn't been offered and that later on we offered a forbearance which he rejected you know again that doesn't mean that that option was available in two thousand and fourteen as a matter of law it wasn't we know that based on the written


spool nexus covert all right the evidence is clear unequivocal that text never complain never pointed out to wayne that it was not in compliance with the contract text and had people on the job site inspecting the job


which they know they knew was talking to comply with the code and that wouldn't be allowed would it and i don't know what that would not be allowed but they would have had to have complied with the building codes etc get approval of


in the event of even a heated conflict between students and class the typical disciplinary action was to issue a mutual no contact order so the two students could go back to class and continue on and as as i think we've argued quite


had someone of something would hit it and the alarm would go off it didn't have an audible alarm but the lights would start blinking and he thought that's what happened he goes to shut off that and apparently realizes that there's more to it than that because what happens according to what they did


if courts haven't left open the possibility of clearly established law being the political will to certain particular facts and the situation where the particular facts have


ego and we a legacy involvement that creates a federal jurisdiction under the new york convention and they're the st circuit in the stem case and the nd circuit in the oracle case make clear that where the question they're asking


page seven fifty nine of the record where they actually give more statistics and they provide their pages and pages of the statistical tables about all kinds of information how many of these people have had hip fractures all these drivers that may increase the cost


i'm not sure what about the other question i had it is a tricky one for me as the government for clothes for making a custis argument at this point i guess i wish they were i don't think they are at the because i think they can that they can do well they may be


then disputed facts show that the doctor even went back to the cell at the insistence of the nurse who said dr there's something really wrong with this patient he seemed very sick these come down and look at him one


through a process like this before but you'd be asked questions about why did you cheat and why did you do this and how did this come about need to be given a chance to give an explanation and had had she been allowed to submit her statement and advance which she had asked to do


pivoted and is trying to salvage her rehab that claim and sidestepped that strict causation stannard by arguing that the university failed to provide her with accommodations and she argues that into context of the need first in the testing sphere and then in the


correct you really don't have to decide if the district court about the sovereign immunity issue that's correct and i think that's one of the and probably why this case was selected for oral argument because i think the court placed its emphasis on sovereign immunity but i


guilty she had been trying to trial i think october november found guilty was it after that after that she decided she needed to cooperate and provide information to the


fifteen to twenty different co defendants in that case as soon as she started cooperating we found her evidence to be incredibly valuable and i don't question it in any regard so judgment brought at that point can assess the credibility of it of


unless the court has additional questions on this issue or the other issues raised by mr kirby the government would briefly night that a number of issues are raised for the st time in his reply


i mean if you read as he does this exclusion means any and then it hit these various things hear it in our contaminant including i don't think there's any question either by the language of the exclusion or from the case law that if


up where the payments were guaranteed for thirty years we were going to pay thirty years no matter what regardless of whether mr weaver passed away or not and then we would continue to pay after that for us on this he lived so in the event he died within thirty years we had to


argument i think he just interpreted the agreement and then he said and by the way she can't complain about this scene method what's your analysis of the correct sequence you know i mean i guess i've i generally consider standing to be


itself that's not appropriate not proper for this court is not appropriate for for the district court and district court properly recognize that that's not what was intended that's why the district court in the district court never backtracked the


and i in that case it makes clear that analyzing use of property about a government in a t is inappropriate for a private claim against a private company in analyzing the negligent claim the


mr kirk is reckon i'm sorry mr gibson is recognizing that the payment under this note that was executed june of two thousand and sixteen and then the notice says the monthly payment will be twenty seven thousand dollars and some change he says


why would it be in unconscionable given that mr zeidman already owed not just the five hundred thousand he paid but the entire amount that's an excellent question yarn it gets kind of the heart of


app messaging messages between them of course there's some evidence in the record both trial and sentencing of other things that were on cabrera's phone they have a long history of talking about drug


transactions you know and and demit you know arguably is looking at the provision under nine hundred and fifty six dollars a one the roman and i which deals with virtually the same language that we have here but it has in front of it designed


paid was to satisfy the ransom if it satisfying that ransom therefore it doesn't meet the requirement of being represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity because it can't become proceed to


what was never disputed in the trial court was did harm and speak as a citizen did he speak as part of his duties that issue was never raised by either dallas county or


in history about whether or not it was requested timely or any of that and then again i think there's some conversation or discussion of that in the order of dallas county didn't raise the


eighteen minutes so sure forgive me i have a tendency to speak quickly i have a tendency to speak quickly forgive me looking at his other cases mr better as a threshold matter we'd like to point out to the court does not contest


that's one of the factors that the quote that the beyond a says a matter of an ad we look at is whether there are maids he makes allegations that could expose the corruption to others and that's what he is doing particularly his complaint to the security


well it says if you did it you would also have to get in the fact that if the persecutor is motivated to do it because of that then it isn't and that's what we have here we have the sequence of facts is very clear the


it was a case that talk about side is for guys who kind of go in and out of coverage and what percentage of time qualified as maritime employment that's not the issue here because again he was a truck driver this is a guy who works one hundred percent of his time at such a facility never gets in the boats to


custodial interrogation it's been superseded by miranda there's a whole different way of analyzing those custodial interrogations now the key point is that the th amendment right to counsel which is what counsel's argument is based on


the cases i'm trying to i can't find a case that says that if you have proposed for four years a negotiation at the end of the four years you say my position is zero and then the recount responses will how about something more than zero that the company can just say


you'll see that it is in the most sort of gentle the language in that footnote to the extent that this occurred and i'd submit that before a federal agency can bring the power of the federal government to bear in


and we already know that the only u s attorney who cannot get the indictments or get the charges or get the convictions also signed the certification which we're allowed to rebut with discover a lot of us and on the face of those


is described in crawford in melinda's the as a those cases is is very much to restrain the government to make sure that the government doesn't have a wall in creating evidence against against the accused that that could expand its powers


result i don't believe that prosecutors will be encouraged not to make great efforts based on this decision given the fact that the prosecutors did make efforts in this case and it simply did not work out and given the i think fairly unique set of circumstances


that were if there were an example of that is always a clearly established legal proposition it would also depend on other circumstances but if here the burden is on the point of to produce case law to this court that shows


but from mississippi the four dollars things are again bellefonte the two district court decisions and then the bulletin of the insurance commissioner which is important and your honor sat on the court so i'm not going to tell you what this mississippi supreme court you probably know better than


depreciation and the insurance deductible from the estimated replacement cost the adjuster in this case also testified that the not to exceed language is the estimated not actual that's our own a one


panel i know we have seasoned attorneys here so i'll be brief on the rule so please recall that when the yellow light comes on you have two minutes the red light comes on you need to wrap it up now we're still asking you


mr willis based the truth in lending action which he filed against tower which is the underlying complain in dispute here this st contract is a loan installment agreement


proceed under furthermore the other arguments the ambiguity analysis that was identified the tower alone says that the bankruptcy court did not properly go through that analysis that was also not in fact


says tower loan waive the issue as to who were parties the bankruptcy court only in its opinion record page two fifty two dollars states in the lower court now


pressure and whatever your ailment and the case manager at that point in time initially undergoes a series of planning and diagnoses and trying to get on a course that maybe they send him to this doctor and this


provided the opportunity to explain those inconsistency correspondent and its opposition brief to mr nana's motion never suggest it argued or intimated by any inconsistency between the two


take the claim but there are but to go back to the claim itself there are there are two reasons two main reasons why she can't prove prejudice and i think her claim realistically it focuses on the medical


rum pia they defense lawyers the trial lawyers actually had three mental health experts who testified and the supreme court said that was not sufficient because of other red flags that


say there was no abuse of discretion but we think that here because there was a failure to apply the albert standard as articulated by the supreme court discovery should have been permitted we are weak and we just need more discovery there needs to be more


mix it's quite clear and in those cases you do not go to the dictionary at the logical extension of that is that if there's a statute that says that banks need to be capitalisation levels or they drug


whole the whole thing yes but here you have it to my knowledge haven't pointed to a breakdown and a refusal to hear the student or the refusal to hear her i mean his his contention right and this and that and again this is not a procedural


the bankruptcy judge said it's confusing the trustee said it is a confusing mess we admit is confusing the district court is the odd man out he's the only one says that it's not confusing is not ambiguous


here so do you agree with counsel's opposites view that what we're talking about here is a question of law what does the statute mean with respect to sign heighten what's grandfather and what's not i don't think


you don't want us to rule bit as the bankruptcy court are determined that they the trustee did exactly what it was supposed to do you don't want us to determine that here today if


doing her work was anyone selling that position or was the part of the restructuring that if she was gone for two years and nobody did that work well maybe no one needs to have the position so your honor that was contemplated by mr owens


and took each one a part in our petition and if you look at page thirty two and thirty three of our petition you have a summary of exactly what it is that were the issues that mr snyder


string site that ok all of the courts but there's a clip in the ninth circuit that when you got to do the written questions around ok there is the sweeney versus bond case from the eighth circuit that was directly


a conversation in myanmar on the other questions were you know were there were there discussions with sponsors of some other bill that went to the lead so that when even listed on the deposition top list of something that mr snyder had


person listed in our documents we looked in the documents they produced he's all over the documents there's many e mails with him on him there's memorandum discussing his concept of the airport takeover identified as you say any person listed in the documents what


contractual opportunity to supervise to enforce to garner accountability from and to otherwise keep them honest with respect to making sure they were referring folks to that their preferred providers this wasn't the


we think that the totality of the evidence had the jury heard this evidence to impeach their expert witnesses we suspect or we don't suspect we believe we've had a substantially


on behalf of the estate as a whole and all beneficiary sitting inside of that state including somebody like zack stringer who at the time of the filing of that complaint is over twenty one years of


does or doesn't impact this case i presume that is under the eighth amendment claim that they have raised your honor i think in this particular case because there's already been a ruling on whether the


fis circuit ruled that a single mode of the for a single goal is not enough to make it a single act and that dealt with legal malpractise claims and they ultimately held that they were discrete acts that resulted in discrete losses


single act rift plays a district court said rivers claims business model is on trial here there's no question about his or ma'am our best case is met but i would also point out that there are two other cases that are extremely good on this point and i want to point out one a couple of things about the


but the point of saying he did it with evil in your heart and so we're in title to a privilege and to further discovery so we can determine whether you have evil in your heart that's the th amendment claim here nobody


reply brief in which the plaintiff there claim the defendant a saw of actually a declaratory judgment when the defendant they claimed it was a mortgage servicer the court went through the


think we would get an order saying something to the effect that s l s was not the mortgage service or the last stance of bill notice of


during that four year period after those celebrations those instances of the celebration occurred in that four years statute of limitations for example when new notices of default were sent


protest the public notice reading order yes your honor the public misreading order seems again given to a group of employees many of whom aren't even aware of the union will have no impact on them that doesn't seem to be supported by the facts it seems


speech rights if the employer thinks that publicly reading the notice is somehow saying that they agree with it in some way they can say we don't want to do this we can have the board agent do so instead the board gives the employer the option to do that to decide which of those it


to what is troubling you that would be great


and definite or whether it's just abstract and covers anything the fact that i keep coming back to is the fact that the plaintiff kept changing its own position shows that they didn't know what was


we also see i mean this is perhaps not intrinsic evidence but i think it's a valid point that it's not nonsensical to have e mail into a central machine and then a notification e mail out and that's in fact what the entire infringement case is about so the


doesn't discuss them necessarily as in a can be a kind of a context and then the summary of invention talks about how the president of engine involves receiving an incoming phone call and then when


the record that this has led to significant improvement in terms of therapy particularly for an electronic cardiac monitoring system we have so much data that's coming in over twenty four hours over the here ration of a week or two you know this but in vengeance


your bringing in the vase a vase whether the vase can be used for packing or convenience we don't know it was never any evidence of but came in there is evidence that my client's product which is used for packing could be


so more data so we would know so i don't think it's fair to characterize the sexy component of go to meeting of the accused products that have no knowledge or to be blind with respect to what's going on with the operating system the end of the day


remember and then not to be done is really that it doesn't have the driver safety score driver safety data it's committed to in a fashion that makes it difficult to understand what the board is doing but to the


identify what the focus of the statute is because that kind of the focus of the statute has to occur in the in in the united states generally didn't apply that test perhaps because the court the the majority there thought that morrison was limited


from that we find problematic that documentary evidence upon which respondent bases its claim of continuous use responded relies heavily on its trial exhibits to that five which consist of printouts from the websites referenced above purporting to show service mark usage


readily searchable or usable or practical but that does not make them taxable what race tires and in the vast majority of decisions since it makes


reply to the pending a response says that it is seeking to have the only after the board invalidate claims one through nine eleven twenty eight and twenty nine of the three seventy six patent as anticipated by gregory page eight hundred seventy six so that


art fact we had a very very early circuit board that operate that way that is why the a push for a construction of first cache memory seems to be as push for construction of


the key issue here is what the key issue i haven't heard much discussion is whether there is a fundamental fairness in the economics of applying zeroing in one case and not applying it in the other i've heard nobody talk


on this is is look this is a three week jury trial with a lot of stuff going on and in terms of the number of questions that they object to today but they didn't object to then it's about


permissible interpretation of this regulation under the words or associated that it is possible that those records were in the claims file but simply had not been associated with the claims


process using a visual flow chart as a means whereby that behavior can be modified and whereby you do not as a user need to know and understand and implement


government doesn't like his name they can prevent his registration because they find his name disparaging the preventives registration what his name happens to be osama bin ladin and we're not going to allow him to register as a medical doctor because they don't


contrast with walker is one that helps us in this case and walker what was going on it was a license plate but somebody wanted to splay their vehicle it would take texas on it and then it would say sons of confederate veterans or have a logo underneath it and see


population and we disapprove of it and we would like there to be less of it so we will deny an equal protection why is that ok for the first amendment well even if you don't think that they're binary categories there are


that the last point we were going to make on the module issue is simply that leaving aside kind of exhaustion and waiver concerns if your argument before this court is


you would know that in order to create such behavioral groups relevant to insurance rating well here it doesn't say that there's any group relevant to surance rating that an expert can say that but that's


i do want to talk about i have three minutes or so let's talk about the other appeal which is very similar except it deals with shards of primary reference instead of the soka so you don't have a fuzzy logic we have similar


so you have as a basis substantial evidence that here it discloses an actuarial class that relates to insurance loss you have paid or sign the florida guide the ninety seven opap


available to a pat down or to pursuing these proceedings some expressively enumerated in the regulations some not but available to you to ask for one that nobody's mentioned is the fact that pursuant to forty two three hundred the the board can extend these


is not required we submit that that standard is not met here ion does not directly compete for the same customers with western g p l therefore lost profits are completely off the table and as a subsidiary point to that


in a way a better response so that car about provision your honour's and so let me also your honour's get to the declaratory relief cause of action as well we discuss the fraud in the breach of contract claims a little bit


contract the very that's what a patent license it it's protection against patent infringement liability so the idea that you could happen to clear it to a judgment action intice a painting a patent infringement action doesn't make any


apologize if in an abundance of caution we marked great portions of the brief confidential but it wouldn't look it would look bad if we were to be sued by paps for breaching the contract in the middle of this lawsuit and


media except you have four twisted together that's what the japanese pad is about a snap about putting these multiple transmission media into a cable that's about the clock and what the japanese patent does is it references and alignment


and they're not they're not disclosed that way there's no question and if the p tabs rule is right that you that the point is you look for whether one computer program can do it then you could combine procedures from a start up operation and a shut down operation because they both


absolutely john and so therefore when in your view the other side at a late stage said no it doesn't include ambiguous identifications you're saying ok now the playing field is completely changed and at


is you have a digital model of someone's teeth in cricket position and then in the straight position you have another model and then you come in and you gap fill the


argument of the importation of digital data sets and they would be hard pressed to even find the importation of an individual keystroke so the points made in bayer in a t n t versus microsoft in the one yesterday is well taken


it needs to be based on credit data you're on but then trying to say sufficient information was sufficient information they'd be different for one money and situation versus another that all lending institutions need


along the contra lateral law that first articulate portion was shown to be the orange portion in our brief that at the figure that was approximately two centimeters long


contracting officer it simply said well alright i don't really want to get into a lot of discussions and back and forth i'll just deem the exceptions not to be a problem so our resolve this without


monster's perspective i'm a little disturbed in hearing some of the statements by counsel for ally in its argument using terms such as monster it was not compliant or took


specification h p s definition of the state from the specification was the full definition from the specification cornell's definition from the specification was a cherry picked one


instruction unit which is the portion of the processor that issues instructions it also requires the determination of alpha s one alpha as to invaded the ip of the answer to that mr pup laska i think would say


back morning is numbers zero six sixteen seventy eight navy against bath iron works mr mann hired


identical what do you think is the right way let's assume for a moment that we agree with you that the zero forty six patent conclusively binds mr lawlor to the view that outsold and bottom sold


case that would support a reasonable decision on both sides but the fact of the matter is when we look at underselling growing through the this is the record a little more disagreement over disagrees with us the record here shows that underselling was


disclosure which would have prevented the argument that the applicant made to get the case alas out lately he said babel which was plastic he said you could use plastic he said a lot of other things but he didn't say use plastic because it slows the signal


a connecting element there's no dispute that mcafee had those and instrument which was can scoot construed to mean implemented so i disputed that mcafee used surgical instruments the instrument has to be associated with the connecting element which means it's an implement


to go back well your honor we think we think there is sufficient evidence in the record there's undisputed expert testimony in the record here that a person of ordinary skill in the art knew how to retrieve information from a database or we should know


occurs in the brady context doesn't occur until you know the outcome is affected but in the persons or due process of the compulsory process sixth amendment and due process case situation it occurs when the process is


that the balance you know is important consideration the balance between the government's interest and necessity and deporting illegal aliens versus their requirement for testimony and i think in that case there


that was less than a year from the day i think that it was like nine months or something like that that's right and it was less than a year and had she intended to reopen had she wanted to reopen within that one your period time she certainly could have done so she didn't do i mean you're in a pretty tough position though


against the potential claim so for example in a bankruptcy proceeding to the extent the assets haven't accrued they are still contingent at the time the state can be lifted such that you can varnish wages against the potential recovery of the future claim and


the government describes a somewhat simplistic and inaccurate version of the events in which the genes induced kaiser to dismiss its lawsuit by promising to have deleted the patient health information or ph i only to


judgment in the affidavit of the search warrant that was the only basis that mr dean raised that that point in subsequent appellate briefing mr dean has raised two additional points which were to be honest the majority of what the court was asking


i have just two points i want to make the first just to correct a factual factual misstatement which my posing counsel said that the case between kaiser mr dean was settled in two thousand and thirteen and it just wasn't a motion for summary judgment was granted in august two thousand and thirteen


of the hillside that didn't move but all the land around it moves so it's vulnerable to future movement that's excluded as well because what appellant seems to be leaving out is that this exclusion does not just exclude


this because of thirteen sixteen and eighteen well i think the i think you're correct and i was i was assuming that the court wasn't settled on that issue but that is correct our position is the analysis should begin and end with congress's language and


have could have gone up then there's no damages but here where there's a bad financial economy they hold the stocks for period time they go down there's still have to prove what caused the specific


the opportunity to give grant her the opportunity to do that and i think that is a big factor and one of the things that she also complained about was that the evidence presented to the juvenile court


similar situation that's certainly going about as i understood it and michelle you were talking about police officers being called to an abandoned three year old screaming for help and finding premises that were unfit


claims she's trying to make were actually litigated in the state court record and it seems like you're saying the equal protection one wasn't then there's also the issue of just is there some kind of lying to the court straight up conspiracy to deprive her of parental rights but it does seem like her two


proper process to grant leave to amend or to dismiss without prejudice and have the litigant file a new action to properly invoke that jurisdiction and why do you care about that difference actually i think we do give leave to amend


paid that is brought under section four or five of forty two c f r and it's brought it's a totally different process it's a five step process it does not appear that that occurred here


are served in this litigation what should you have done or what would you have done i would have monitored the litigation to ensure as had been promised all along including from the oh it's judge on board that one of the


would submit that nothing the prosecutor did rose to the level of misconduct admittedly there were a few errors that were made during this trial however for a cumulative analysis they


proceeding on an inconsistent theory of guilt which he did not do the theory never changed between the first and second trial it was that petitioner had personally committed these robberies but whether there was on with them or not changed their


even duty and it was repeatedly denied by d h s it was a material part of this contract they had to perform even but the issue that the deposition testimony talks about is one small segment and that is a complaint from


issue as we should have been the opportunity to have the decision makers read his report beforehand but that's not a first amendment right so this is a new standard just a cart's view was that your


you don't have to wait for the staff report you don't have to wait for the item to be on the agenda it doesn't even have to be something that's on the town's radar to be able to send comments in fact a lot of the time issues


california law is narrow that the plaintiff has to show material effect on terms and conditions of employment that is a substantial detrimental effect on the terms and conditions


contract mcdonald actually was a shareholder in a corporation that was contractually obligated with dominoes and what the supreme court said was yeah the show holder may have a viable stake for sure on her alter ego


things yeah and so what judge carter was doing was saying if people are in the military this is what an employer's duty is to people in the military and he didn't get notice and that therefore


it is never said that they do not exist we don't have them though and there was a footnote in our briefs explain the reason why there was a dispute among ownership at the time that these might have been returned to world wide subsidy group worldwide subsea group was being run


together with there are these pieces of paper at the same time that they said we're going to proceed in reliance on their terms and they said please go ahead so the question is it really that terms which is what


that says there were two non conflicting other insurance clauses are should be ignored non conflicting is the key these other inshalla if my argument if the van diagrams if there's a if there's an intersection then


from the election policy by by virtue of the definition of mobile equipment and the exception is covered in the cost of policy and vice versa so you're saying the operation to your exclusion or exclusion is


there is in my mind an underlying element that there is that can be relied upon in substantial quibble and see and hear what you had was when they finished when they found the f d a finally


if i if we stop right there well do you have a case yeah i think we do because you still say it's not clear necessarily what it means about this the string of synonyms alleging based on arising out of her trip


their falsity it dealt with the financing mechanism and whether when you get right credit it's not that obvious just had to do with whether the port was wrong whether they told whether they told the contractor gave them a bad advice whether it was legal advice or whether they were being deceptive at doesn't really


and they said defense attorney state that they have already removed entries that relate directly to the securities issues plainest do not point to specific entries which we didn't based on this the court concludes the issues facts are so interleague


that the state bar cites even cost control marketing their main case where the payments made directly to a private party here the state bar says i owed the government nothing the payment isn't posed to be made


ruled because that's how the state bar had integrated that staff so then you did not pay the the five thousand dollars fifty five hundred dollars back to the client correct i tried to make a payment plan yes ok but the but the five fifty five hundred dollars was not paid back correct


stayed attorney disciplinary and attorney regulatory matters and i don't think it's productive to get into an argument about whether the word discipline technically applies here her license is suspended that is clearly an exercise of power over her ability


if both parties brief the issue even though the district court didn't reach it under novo review don't we have the authority to to decide that question is a little and i think we argued right on the record before


docket entries right there yes there were docket and i mean i think people net limits a lot worse than two days of filing something light and actually kind of call on two weeks after it was due saying i need another week to get it


found would have been able to show that those side effects were very remote and rare only one point two percent experiencing such side effects so the fact is what counsel have a reasonable basis for not putting on that evidence is there a strategy that we can and we can


best tribal material if you think that's the best triable issue for the tribal issue as i understand it is whether or not they follow the policy is whether or not you transfer from the way they treated the policy that they were stations


morning your honour's may please the court i'm donald trump les i represent the appellant's in this case peggy and jennings and if we are here seeking the reversal of a motion for summary judgment granted by a bankruptcy


is a specific spiritual injury and not simply offense at the government's alleged violation of law or the constitution to be clear no cases outside of the establishment clause


that there is no opportunity for a hearing to get off the list what the district court in both cases when you receive notice your the motor says you're on the list you're on the left in their list right it's doesn't say you can come in and talked to us


itself doesn't create a due process issue i completely disagree with that well that's why it is in the federal level if you don't pay you if you want to contest to federal income taxes you pay for well that's true but you're not talking just about contesting taxes


that your your claim is that by all the stuff they did leading up to the lawsuit was an abuse of the privilege right there and the judge said no it was preparation for litigation and you say all but it was bad faith preparation for


this issue the judge didn't really get to that issue and agreed that basically yes that's your ambulance sheep the trial just a court found that that this is in the district court order that that this is what you're alleging


this record i think you get to the same result and i think you get to the same result if you think about it too as a special circumstances question because all of those just point to the same problem which is that rather than produce actual affidavits that call into


also which are the this or the un steered rates if you will ok well just as a just as a very basic matter if you were trying to draw it from the non interactive market you would use the headline rates not the secured rates because you can't actually


doing so and they can do so we submit they have no legal justification for doing so they have no factual justification for doing so and if the state department disagrees with our analysis of the statute then as your other points out why is it


in the two thousand and so so what you're saying is that the four in the in applying the eighty seven read you could only look at changes in circumstances


case number sixteen cash ten twenty three and now new england power traders generators association inc the titian or versus federal energy regulatory commission mr toys for the petitioner is going to respond


really the the overall point is that given what happened in the complaint proceeding referred had a duty to determine that these rates were just and reasonable and failed to do so it simply said that's outside the scope of this proceeding go ahead you know brand complaint proceeding to


incorrect discussions at the beginning of the discussion look parties in the court it is clear that the court knew and understood the rules and in addition to that the court did not rule in the end after hearing the board to hear from mr ramsey that


excluded from a u f o as i say that and in my opinion in the for in the authorities you heard opinion i mean i think it it refers certainly it is relies on the national border patrol council came on but doesn't say that that work we're going to accept a


explore in every case certainly they go for the doctors or the fabric of litigation principle but what i don't think this court has ever required is that the commission or just records rundown every trap now never require pursuant to them or is a reasoned decision


also think that there is a sufficient justification for protecting police officers you know trying to figure out it seems like in almost any case where you're challenging regulations the government's


and from the district and then you can complete that paperwork online in that way it's much like renewing your registration for your driver's license or for your heart and so it's a process that takes care of the real and considered problem of the council identified and does on a way that is


point that and i think police departments generally recognize that nobody checks nobody assumes the registration record will reflect that there will be no gun at the same do you would you put in


well we have discretion to act as we did in that california public utilities commission case and if we choose not to exercise that discretion basically


extent of an applicant's burden can of course be contingent but the point is at the end of the day in those cases there is an understanding that if each if he is obtained it will be turned over to counsel that understanding is absent


finding out whether you've met utilization dollars at a burden that happens after all and that's what i was asking about the burn afterwards right where they describe it as utilization analysis i guess are not totally specific about that it seems clear to us from a plain reading of it that


major goals of of changing the commission structure but health care and pension were the biggies for the company with all three groups of employees and the company provided financial information to the union up front who took this information at face value and never questioned it never


board improperly determined the petitioner staff co violated section eighty five and one of the national labor relations act the petition for review should be granted for three reasons first the board improperly determined that the


brief page twenty four the board three for example they call the path of least resistance not belt and suspenders there's not one citation to the record in that part of their brief they can't cite any testimony or any documentary evidence that that was the real


it can you help me distinguish oak harbor how this this case is not


from the commonwealth and then they also got the employer's payment which is a smaller saw and the employer then would have would have reimbursed the commonwealth so to count that as as being going to the severance


and then there's the cases anew i mean isn't that the issue before us is to the agency properly count the violations here and if you just acknowledge that the statute doesn't to record them to do that then


think the statute does not use the words count the but this statute does direct the agency to assess violations so that the penalty increases from one violation to the next it also directs that this


calculations arithmetic calculations that's seven hundred dollars determination is used by the board as an initial decision yeah the cost of


see that by using the middle fifty we take care of the the problems introduced by using some of these idiosyncratic pipelines that if you're in the middle eighty so that the commission is


i believe we've covered covered balian for desire as i figured we would with the last couple minutes i'd like to address the issue of qualified immunity under the supreme court's decision and garner that's the benchmark case for the qualified immunity


what criteria would be used and what courts have said is that when you have that's one of a pre approval process when you have that sort of a prior restraint when there's unfettered discretion the risk


check with us we're going to hold it we're best at it well worse we're not going to even tell you that there's a process we're not going to tell you the timing of which will review the material and we're not going to tell you perhaps even our decision


this how i mean what i read and i thought this actually puts the department really good light it didn't give me much sense of anything that was going on as i recall there is somebody radioing somebody who's on a crime scene with a barricade on the radio and


would how would we leave anything to well as a government pointed out there


type of testimony that that the defendant has already lost sure it doesn't have to be long you come in you say he already lost and therefore he should lose here too and i think jurors are become more


if if if purchasers of return receipt for merchandise came back that we proposed this right this isn't we can't do this unilaterally we proceed to the commission and if users of the mail say came there users of this service say oh you know this isn't really fair to us because the only reason we like this


that is correct i thought the board's only riveted and friends is implicitly based on a rejection of the elegies very extensive and detailed probability findings with respect to all of the other witnesses mr


that's correct and that if the only issue in that case had been a jason that was a national national significance and should have been you should have made a determination of some kind finally action and brought that to the


october or december of two thousand and twelve he said we're not allowed to bring ideas and what cox said at the same time is what has been done in the past was discretionary and everything had to be negotiated everything had to be


relative contribution of the sources as written the second sentence thereby creates a significant loophole in the clean air act and it threatens to him cough the narrow exception that congress intended to create in


settlement agreement there's an event there's no settlement agreement in this case right of several general dynamical in our case one in front of me nothing there i think american freight i'm sorry sorry then recently settlement in the king soopers


that i should have waited until i sacked the groceries and then filed a grievance so she fully new business speculation which that alle j said if that's her term speculative it's not speculative at


agency could not an issue its advisory despite the evidence it gathered because essentially what it would have to be able to find a one hundred percent risk


it because the message was received it was it's an unusual case and normally the victim is not saying yes he tried to withdraw but that's what the victim testified to essentially i mean that's sort of that is the government's


kansas is own in part by great plains energy that can stars only part by west or in the great plains energy and west or are involved in a transaction where ownership of those entities will be combined so what that means is that the time one of these not yet formed affiliates seeks to implement the


late because the project was already implemented by that time ok so their answer as i recall his the timing was such that nurse was appropriate that that march twelfth cutoff date for switching


the exemptions which were supposedly done in advance were in fact done in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen which was far along in the process by the time that they had already used nurse for three years when they should have been using a d t so those


analysis would require that's a j a sixty six yes but i thought if i understood also for the government it's crude but it's it's meant to be over inclusive so that you don't so that doesn't miss


be operated for the next thirty years is very much part of the effects of this action because that's going to continue to have impacts on these species that are not part of the past impacts work and can you draw


conspiracy they brought the guns they brought the tools of the robbery they boasted about their ability to complete wrong arm robbery they rejected repeated opportunities to draw so i'm not racist there wouldn't have been any credit


it was in the truck and in his truck that had been used to transport the wrapping material for the contraband that's correct to the garage in which he was seen at least for two hours that's correct your honor but maybe more precisely


what we'd hear is that there are all sorts of conflicting reports and he had kind of a week had but on the other hand you have this vehicle leaving the scene of a bank


offended by a reliance on what would obviously be a drug trafficking or finance in the absence of an objection by the defense well i think that the administration of justice will


maybe it's enough that he was told go to portland stay at this motel don't associate with other vietnamese or asian appearing people that you run into in the restaurant and meet us at four am in the


problem in the sense that it wasn't evident on the it wasn't evident from the face of the plea agreement i think the government would i believe they would have to say we knew about it because yes


turn absolutely square corner and when you enter into a plea agreement that eleven specially eleven c agreement that calls for a definitive sentence you've struck


certainly my


twenty nine there is not sufficient evidence that's unambiguous there's no evidence of intent of the young man and the four young men in the car they are floating around the area they are getting a drink when it would be actually a crucial time for them to be watching the


was not adequate because he was never told that an attorney could be appointed for him prior any questioning of the sort of the sired and furthermore he was in tribal custody at that particular time being interrogated by a tribal officer so the the


in those cases the distinction was made between what were local rights and what were federal rights but that was not held sufficient to convey to the defendant clearly in an unambiguous least fifth amendment rights the court does have any further questions


is that regarding count three this is according to this judge as i remember the testimony she said that she was given a couple of opportunities to say whether or not this conduct ever occurred before and i think she insisted that it had not


the matter and there are two things about that testimony i would like to mention one is that they say that the defendant admitted to contact with the penis and contact with the hand they


particular my client good works and his work on world hunger projects throughout the world these were things that were considered by just a court but were not town to reach the level that would have been required under the guidelines to give him a break in addition


and i look at the financials when the executive director brings a man one thing you always have to worry about if you're on the board of directors is this effective directors feeling but as long as they see consulting previews and do


after the relevant period which reportedly purportedly were supposed to be helping or it looks phony to me but i'm wondering how do i say as i have to say under the chapman test


pay the point wasn't the money that i'm sorry around a guy at play of money that was in there that is involved was in there before my client ever took over the predecessor never told clark county about this money hark how they never got the statements


funds were coming in that there were the shortages one last thing exhibits one fifty three and one fifty four in our appendix reflecting all the money going into these accounts both the general claims account and met this account


and california law clearly discusses that uninhabited well inhabited underprepared for five nights is currently used for dwelling purposes whether occupied or not so it would cover the vacation house that would cover the


i would of course entertain questions on any of the other issues that the court may have with respect to the motion for new trial i submit to you that the district court judge ignored the


authorized does violate the fourth amendment clearly as i already talked about the fourth amendment applies to them and there are good very very sound reasons why it should this is a growing trend to use these sort of semi requires the law


defense attorney wanted you to look at the middle distance and i don't understand that it seems to me the depositions already happened there's just no point in calling his lawyer saying how can i get to it it's already over what's more


but i may be wrong i'm simply suggesting that there was no rush to do the deposition that this time i think in looking at profit the language in crawford talks about face to face confrontation


came in here and told you the truth and that was a direct result of the cross examination of mr harris by defense counsel he went after his integrity he said that he went after that he was not someone who's is not being someone


and fortunate for it is that the hearing officer not credit his test and so how can we if if we're going to rely upon mr thurman who aren't we going to have to be making a finding


know there were several objects to the conspiracy because once there was a murder at the end at the end of the day yes they had to because when they took the car when they took the car by force it had to end somewhere and it wasn't


if the answer to that is yes that's the end of the problem if the answer to that is no then we get on through good for a man this is question which is in this case did it make a difference but i think we


spotlight the cases regarding conspiracy i think they can be summarized into four categories there's cases regarding cannister vaillant's there's cases regarding relationship there's cases regarding knowledge and there's cases regarding corrugated


there in the car in the transcripts prove it out but he's holding the answer bottles with the u s currency the agent during that encounter says do you have my fifteen large for me his responses i've been down it i don't know what this


well below what would have been the defendant was was sentenced to the mandatory minimum five years his guideline range well below what would have been sixteen months it was somewhere i think in the


what does that have to do with harmon telling investor i am going to give you if you'll give me money i will give you a first deal trust on a parcel of property when he had no intention of giving the person a person of trust and indeed gave him a


none of us will ever know the problem here is that this really isn't a clerical error it is it will air in the end yes your honor i was just having trouble tracking the way you characterized what happened you said he sentenced him to sound i mean


apparently calculated to overcome grand jurors concerns it then was able to salvage the conviction only by ignoring the dual function of the grand jury a grand jury as this court has repeatedly recognized is not just to consider probable


if i believe this fact is factual proper that it doesn't support the elements of the defense as a matter of there's no doubt that the court has that he can function but in this case our argument is this proffer did indeed meet the elements


seven o nine and they testified in the record that they got the call they arrived there sometime between seven ten and seven fifteen but they met three streets away the three officers they met there and they made a plan for how they were going to approach the residence there


this affidavit is that she is in jail and could not possibly have observed this what the judge doesn't know is that they were warned about this so they did a follow up interview they go back and they say how could you possibly know that


to change the record they knew that it wasn't true and therefore they had to go back and try to alter the record i would submit that what that shows is that there was diligence and good faith on the part of the agents here in trying to present the information to the magistrate and make sure that of the just record


in the same investigation so to the extent that they were not that the agents did not find out about these allegations about the national state that was claimed by the defense in that case to to intentionally


evidence is that under the regulation it is not enough that i've defended created a situation with interfered with the performance of the park ranger it has to be an intentional interference


well he was held in tribal court for seven months in juvenile detention in tribal court for seven months before the government thing to sort of occasion to charge him federally during that seven month period of time he faced charges


look at the mutilated courses is clearly a course of atmosphere not dispelled by anything other then putting him in the company of the agent that had done that to him and all of the


if i could reserve my last let me ask a couple questions your client found guilty of being found in the united states yes you know exactly where was your client found in the united states originally at the time of his arrest


appropriate there's nothing in the record suggesting this would have been about lou's fate as well that he would be treated in the federal system as it as a an adult and in addition i don't believe it's in the briefs but he had also been convicted of manslaughter in santa


if there is a departure which is based even in part on impermissible factors that's the end of the story it has to go back to the district court since as vacated you know i i think when i first read your brief i thought well it tells me that we have


well it may be both basically the regulations require the when we receive what we consider an adverse decision from a district court that has been reported up the chain of command and it went all of the way through the vision of


client and so but i agree with you that it seems like we should have if i wanted additional questions asked we could have done it in a way where it was done through the judge that's that's done a lot during


the motions for summary judgment on the collateral stop issue are submitted you know read directly from the bankruptcy court's decision the parties agreed that the court could not reconsider findings


fiduciary under five twenty three beyond that i believe everything is stated in my brief unless the court has any questions for me thank you very much


to testimony as anecdotal i think she's referring to linda contour but what she doesn't do is address the unrebutted expert testimony of dr meyer and holly allison the nurse practitioner both of which


violent second two thousand and ten johnson also treats us that teaches us that aca predicates are defined by state law so when we look at a defendant's conviction under the aca we look at how the particular


good morning your honor some may it please the court my name is roman martinez and i'm here on behalf of the individual defendants a point of theory in this case fails for two overarching reasons first of all none of the statements was misleading or triggered any


sure and i think it's i'm glad to the opportunity because that happened very early in the conditions of release that happened some eighteen months ago and it wasn't they you know were out to dinner at the palm or something i mean they stopped at a takeout restaurant on the way back from


actually not a man with serious medical problems that's not true but it is a man who's roughly seventy years old a four year sentence is a substantial sentence and judge roberts having presided over all of this years of litigation hearing from the security firm itself well aware of the history of the firm


them to are the traffic enforcement agents yana and they are on a daily basis as a matter of fact it's quote in our brief in a nine month period in two thousand and sixteen they logged over twenty thousand


yet we do know the amount of force that was used to explain that that we what what that force was but we don't have testimony as to how the force was applied but again i think


the case they were free as they did to argue an alternative theory of how he was injured omar cologne said as well you failed to warn me of the danger of climbing forty feet in the air so i got into the proximity of a static electric field and


or further so that he was facing hamilton a life sentence in prison for the crimes that he pled guilty to in this case and in the next breath tells the jury he's hoping to


mandatory life term he was sentenced because of his youth to a lesser sentence now that court declined to extend miller versus alexander alabama passed in one thousand birthday but it did not cut a draw a line in the


him that day had brought the gun to say well to mr allen but the evidence actually from the state clean with that as well as the physical evidence admitted at trial was that the gun was loaded so selling a gun and having a loaded


is not a clear unequivocal statement that diet pepsi will help you lose weight your honor not in the way you're putting it context is crucial and when you look at


you can affirm that as a substantive matter the court found my motion untimely and therefore i'm not allowed to intervene is that your question yes absolutely and i'd like to get to the point here if you could help help me understand this for the record


officers who were injured you in the st place who are the people you're trying to sue now many years after what i heard but that's that's the issue for us and i understand what you're saying you're saying that you were the victim of bad lawyers in


says that the plaintiff recovers the reasonable value of his performance that's kyats us whether or not the defendant in any economic sense benefited from the performance we didn't have to prove that a arrive benefited in order


to recover a quantum merit although if it were some value to the services zone and we in there was a first to prove that yes we did first of all that is faction not known not to the district court satisfaction but we did prove that first of all


meet with the replacement contractor wipro to explain its work product and for whatever reason wipro chose not to take yachts up on that offer then it got into the software didn't understand it and as a result re did much of the work the


more importantly again we're not they are legation is not that the twenty four plaintiffs worked twenty four hours through their full shift every day for the past ten years there were two or


missouri then the loan or the lenders were in missouri and the customer reps were in missouri the banks were in missouri the borrowers residence in this case new york was one contact a single contact of the five borrowers


yes because i'm a little puzzled and my right that the district court held that some of the claims in your complaint were in fact properly filed that there was no defect in


having resolved the issue of how many offers there were because of course if there had been more than one we would be discussing a different issue having resolved that question there was no need for any further discussion discovery and no need for a hearing so the court was in any kind of


laugh or issue like this one that a court is entitled in the st instance to take sworn testimony from the participants and and determine whether further discovery is necessary i've been involved in these as in a usa where where we've done that


triggered the requirement to have a hearing many of these are resolved cross a so we don't have c j counsel and some of the mr kleiman was retained late here if we had a hearing and everyone of course there would be counsel and everyone it's not always the case that the lawyers are local


and two but can do three it was no differentiation so my position respectfully judge is that world trade center provides a certainly an excellent guide here and i think in the context of the issues raised here and the fact that there


this that's not an excuse whatsoever i would with all due respect to the lower court and to this this court as i said this case has been going on for six years now the petition was recently filed for the th of fourteen


jurors and then make that determination and that's what exactly what happened here with respect to the jury instruction itself the in this report noted i think in the notes is the defense opened the door with this


and twenty two g one charge the defendant was a felon the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition and the firearm or ammunition was in or affecting interstate commerce now added to that is that the defendant


it's a large number period but context is helpful sure and in terms of context this was the largest customer of express scripts it represented as much as one third


confirmation hearing in order to allow counsel to do what he was supposed to do from the beginning it couldn't be clearer under kerry under scott that this is a mandatory hard and fast rule and if you look at what counsel provided it was simply a


request of saying well we're going to ask for more time because defense counsel needs it even though the defense counsels on asking for so st of all what's the reference to the courts unavailable before march trial date your honor st off by way of background


confidential that's exactly right and that is the mis in the misuse and that is precisely why i believe the district court erred is because in the very short analysis on this with the district court


judgment rather than dismissal but if she left for that reason to go to school what's the evidence that that the young the the end of employment was attributable to discrimination


thank you your honor one of the circumstances that this court flagged was jones's own situation and i don't think there's a dispute that we couldn't provide any information about that because we were blocked at every turn from accessing that information three and now four years have elapsed since the


there is a reasonable possibility that's not purely speculative that he will be harmed as a result of his religion as it was the last time the authorities visited his mother use ago and what is the status of


why is that not a statement about half truths and why and why where in scallions or in any other case that i'm familiar with have we required the government war for that matter a


act practice or course of business that operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a purchaser or seller in your honour's i would just note that that is how the government argued this case to the jury


for five years indicates her assent to that agreement and that's one of the points that the district court pointed out arm of a specific suture you know there was there a signature that we


thought she would be going with the jury instructions so on two hundred and fifty five dollars it actually starts at the bottom of two hundred and fifty four dollars judge rice says that she wants to she she had rearranged initially be substantive offense was described st and then aiding and abetting but what


stop exercising your freedom of speech or else so st what happened is they made an out of court electronic communication to my defense counsel demanding that i pull the letter down


recognition of this begins claim for me it's damages under bivins or nothing at all to address the statute of limitations concern we request about the removing a


consideration that is true it's why there's an interview for the p s r report but the one thing i indicated in my reply brief is that the p s r report on fortunately my defense


this refers to an employee so the bonus that issue here was relates to two thousand and fifteen mr ekdahl was terminated in two thousand and sixteen this provision applies to employees who are terminated halfway through the year so if he had been terminated


castleman which discusses in direct force and it discusses this this famous now sprinkling poison hypothetical which has been discussed again and again in cases so there that discussion were cast someone says in direct


because that asset was on the books before the bankruptcy and we look at the at the new value cases there has to be a change in the balance sheet where was the change all that happened here was an


actually we need the bankruptcy court because this is a core issue there needs to be a determination as to what is separate property versus what is community property and then what is husband's buyout of that and the reason that i


articulate his claims and your argument on this point i guess i had assumed that it went mainly to the claim against hill was that the person who went to trial again and i assume that you were basically seeking reversal of the adverse jury


retaliation and this court has no idea what evidence mr clemens could have offered in the record had he noticed the that the government was moving for summary judgment on the basis they move for under davis first or sherman singleton versus wolf this court has discussed in the


been part of the record on appeal and they didn't address anything with regard to what occurred at trial and their brief so i would argue that with regard to the extent that and when i look at this the questions that issue before the court i don't


way it didn't matter at this point doesn't matter anyway ok but i believe that there is significantly more in the hospital quality sure the supplemental payment than there was on that oh really ok i think it's more ok can i ask you about the h


said repeated the ninth circuit's language saying that the doctrine should be the logical relationship test should be applied liberally and flexibly it also then ignored the ninth circuit's statement t l c hospitals and


bonafide material fact having to do with the project than then i think that would be a problem but that isn't the case here the project here was not a loan the project here was


and the judges court i found out about it and i said you can't i don't understand it because we have this hearing here ten days later and i went to see the judge and i didn't fill out the papers right you know i gave them the proof that this hearing without


well it's always a risk but it needs to be put in that in the context of what the law is meant to protect and my client was the last creditor who


they said it doesn't really matter we don't have to do any supplemental work because it doesn't change anything so that introduced this unified effort all of the for the oakland and earthly


statement i don't think she's lying kind of ways affirmatively against the fabrication defense except that you know when this is all said and done and detective tran was like ok i understand what you're saying he's saying i think what


look at what somebody who was not a prime actor in this matter did and whether they had relied on other actions and whether they were otherwise strangers to the process and those are the folks who get protected i'm not saying that the trustee wouldn't be


reason reading is you have to have both outside the normal range and an underlying physiological disorder and one reason for that is if you go beyond that one sentence that we're talking about


ninety seven thousand dollars for the year two thousand and fourteen and thirteen thousand dollars for the year two thousand and thirteen in those combined years mr hard earned over three million dollars so those those amounts were not its real money to most of us


seven it was originally a chapter eleven and then it had been converted to a chapters of salomon bankruptcy that's a bit of code if i think the case was originally filed in twenty ten i'd have to actually look at it so she'd been in bankruptcy for some time and there's a


can see a real difference in the harm that congress was trying to prevent obviously meant to prevent the first kind of harm where the spam misleads you into giving up information that's harmful to you and not


entity and it would take you two kinetics or quick sales i mean it looked to me like there were multiple levels of l l sees and other corporate forms of organization that were


exemptions if the debtor wanted to bid more which is what the process is i mean the best way to figure the value of an asset is what we do all the time in bankruptcy court which is somebody steps forward trustee agrees to


i think what we have here are your honors is a well read is a reasonable discretion by the trustee deference given to that discretion by the the bankruptcy court


july thirtieth had been reassuring analysts everything is fine we have flexible funding options we are in advanced reasonably advanced conversations with lenders this is also in the context though didn't


circumstances in this country and the economic circumstances globally changed dramatically in september two thousand and eight just two months before the presidential election that year when lehman sachs went bankrupt they


officers agents in employees spoke with each other in misled the lender in the letter or anything like that exactly there's nothing there and so


appeal fail i'd like to first talk about the fabrication of evidence claimed the devereaux claim claims the defendants are not entitled to refute the facts that we have alleged and they're not entitled to do so with extrinsic


me about what if you would if you learned what new facts ok well we know that sand of all that the allegation let me start with the allegation in the complaint with regard to sandals identification is that the defendants


that they don't rely on traffic for us to operate the website the owners and operators of porn dot com illegally distributed illegally obtained am a content contractual relationship outlined in the content


ok but i do think that the court the statement that many pharaoh doesn't allow you to analyze the form selection clause or the content partners agreement that's wrong with


as you know about these fees you can never be misled to get lower so you've got a contract that has hidden fees in as soon as you the defendant comes and says you have to pay this v c you find out about it you can't thereafter


is because the history of enterprise ranch area was not set out in detail in these three paragraphs that it can simply be ignored we do not have a channel re problem here though the reasoning of the agency is clear


the public record section should also reflect that a bankruptcy has been filed and do you dispute that these are reports that a bankruptcy had been filed no that's that's in the public record section no we do not dispute that and the way