second americans deserve an efficient effective government that works for them our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers


weapons including caliber sniper rifles are still out there waiting to kill the possibility that administration officials perhaps at the highest level of the justice department approved this strategy


from the united states to countries as diverse as the netherlands canada and macau these international investigations were as unique as the places to where the guns were going however one aspect shared by most of these investigations was the fact that most international


need is vigorous enforcement and prosecution of those that would traffic in firearms a policy of no tolerance for straw purchasers and a change in the sentencing guidelines that would dictate mandatory sentences for these crimes would go a long way in curbing this


walking guns is not a recognized atf investigative technique these guns went to ruthless criminals u s law enforcement and our mexican partners will be recovering these guns for a long time to come as they continue to turn up at crime scenes in mexico


personnel working in mexico each of the partners work toward a common goal to determine the location and circumstances surrounding firearms recovered throughout mexico identifying the criminal element associated with the firearms collecting intelligence


that you knew about let me ask you this if mexico were to ask us to extradite the law enforcement officers who knowingly aided and abetted weapons going into mexico what would your reaction to that be


today one thing that i would hope that we would explore madam chair with the discussion today is the difference between the rural components and the urban components because there are factors that are distinctly


the long term business model for the postal service short term cuts and service will have long term impacts on utilization of the postal service we must learn how the postal service intends to remain solvent during future cycles of economic growth and


term care providers are harmed by more individuals receiving medicaids low reimbursement rate the policy question is who should bear the burden of paying the cost of long term care it would be convenient to say the other guy but what happens when the other guy is tapped


great history the records of a president pain an important picture of an administration as well as the time that surrounds it most importantly these records belong to the people and this bill


friend from north carolina the underlying amendment from the gentleman from north carolina because let me give you a hypothetical situation a scenario what if during an emergency


so when you have something free you simply sign up there is no prohibition my own committee our committee we can have dot com events we can actually post to


so i know that a judge has ruled that the gulf coast compensation facility whatever it's called that that is not truly independent of bp and that may legally


centers operated over three hundred and fifty sites contributed almost one dollar billion to the illinois economy and directly employed almost six thousand illinoisans indeed for every ten people employed by an illinois


an average of eighty six percent of those companies who do not provide coverage said they couldn't afford it seventy two percent of those offering health benefits said they were


profit but we did it we did it because we believe that it was the right thing to do there were only three lawyers but we had about five clericals and we did


from my home state of missouri thank you for being here as well as my friend mister puzder who runs a significant operation out in missouri thank you for your testimony today let


minute opening and then we will go from your right to left my left to right mister blahous thank you mister chairman mister ranking member it's an honor to appear before you today to discuss the funding warning in the two thousand and eleven trustees report my written


would cause many seniors to forego health care altogether those that could would sign up for welfare programs doctor blahous chairman ryan represents this radical


to computer crimes also the proposal would harmonize the sentences and penalties in the computer fraud and abuse act with other similar laws for example acts of wire fraud in the united states carry a maximum of


first one i've seen i would like to add something that the panel was asking earlier you asked when we first became aware that mr hacosta right was involved as the leader of the straw purchasing


i recognize myself we are prepared to accept your amendments i find each of them to be narrow and yet meaningful i am particularly supportive of your recognition that historic districts need to be considered


concerns that the reason that we put in this very small area and i know i am a native of cleveland i live here in washington part of the time and i live in a suburban area in california so i know that two miles in california is how far i


member davis thank you for the opportunity to testify today starting in two thousand and fourteen all americans will have access to affordable health insurance carl camden president and ceo of kelly services one of the largest employers of temporary


employers of temporary workers need not fear employer responsibility it is an essential part of health reform which will expand access to affordable health insurance to millions of americans mister camden of kelly services writes


the postal service for the cost of implementing the requirements of the uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act to carry balloting materials expeditiously and free of postage unfortunately this provision sends the message that congress


hundred seventy two which is when the affirmative government misconduct occurred but there's a statute specifically asked to be complied with for him to become a citizen are you contending that he says he complied with that in one nine hundred seventy two he


least to show that the conservator senate some point there was sixty million worth he thought there was sixty million worth of assets there and that he actually cleared apparently about thirty million and then apparently over fourteen million of his expenses too but normally


the trial court clearly erred here by excluding the evidence of the payments which supported dr buress defense that his failure to pay the taxes was due to his mental illness and the medications he was taking for his serious medical


ok i'll ask them about that explanation but but other than that the fact of the identity of the allowing your defense investigators to interview the juror any explanation of why you wouldn't be given that's the only explanation and of course with time memories fade in


of the trust estate what happens next the bank issues a notice of foreclosure sale and they clearly describe the sale of the property capital p why is that significant because under the deed


dirt that's how they reference the deed of trust then they come to two point one a where they say the lender shall without opposition foreclose or cause the occurrence of a deed of trust sale with respect to the deed


doctor giving the benefit of the doubt he was sent to the hospital and he spent a month in the hospital before he passed away so i guess what i'm having difficulty seeing in this


would have survived or he wouldn't have been ill or he would have not suffered yes your honor the surgical consultation with dr brock this is after mr parker had requested numerous


and look what happened that before the bail was increased in the earlier amount and what did he do he went right back out violated the restraining order so i feel i'm not unsympathetic to the situation it's just that from a purely evidence


mr blount's compensation or the terms conditions or privileges of his employment that's the standard under federal law for whether an action is a disk is it is an adverse action for a claim of discrimination the


actions based on the record would not have discouraged a reasonable person under the circumstances from complaining about discrimination that's the standard under federal law as i i'm sure you know having watched arguments on


mr blount complained of and in fact mr graham made one step further he said he felt so discouraged by nielsen's treatment of him that he left the company when miss koch was removed as his advisor as to whether there are other


that i cannot find that this is a proper sixty inch by sixty inch landing because we have this issue regarding the slope so both issues are still left for trial the court denied and it's clear from the court's m s j order that the paragraph eleven


colorable federal defense to the claims asserted in other words the defendant under that statute has to make some showing on the merits that it can defeat the claims that in court are different than the inquiry under kappa


left or didn't help them in some way and therefore stood opposed to him that they would in fact elements from his entire family i would argue that the kidnapping itself was also a form of persecution and they did subject him to harm they


immigration judges this isn't the immigration judge specific clear refers to the fact that there is corruption in mexico that there is police corruption and that's that's part of their decision they don't


analyze the statute that they should have raised if it's a complicated question how our culture might factor in given the whole mix of the sources that are included in inventories and on this record your honor


were so on reasonable and so unfair you would expect to see that most people who are injured get the discipline for violating it you don't see that you see the opposite what you see is that most people who violate who report injuries do so want


illegal means the district court was correct to find at the ivory coast responsible for the agent's actions this is not and i'd like to start sort of at the top with with counsel's introduction this is actually not a case about sovereign


frustrate federal executions but also because it would also divest the federal government of responsibility for its own executions and i don't think that congress meant that either and so we do have exact numbers congress congress did provide an alternative which is turning over


to to criminalize that password sharing is the government would do is to turn literally millions of honest citizens who are using these devices in the criminals make me i am direct your


no if the trade secret counts including the trade secret pronk of the conspiracy count are defective then you have to reverse on the c f a counts as well because the government's argument is that if you can convict


tax court rules to forty seven to fifty one all the limited partners so we do have an agreement between the i r s and the partner and the partners in this case that brings you within the four corners of the statute and it's also conceded that that agreement


as the union in this case in valley hospital and there they acknowledge that it is an inconvenience to the union to collect dues from its members right there than to have the employer provide them directly but the key for this analysis


all right so then you for for the next five years or so until two thousand and twelve you were working with the windsor law firm and then according to its a letter from


think that there are better equipped to maybe deal with the issue of me being an attorney and also going there as a client under


that i was going there to investigate potential s s ability violations there are not necessarily as and in my capacity as an attorney i had announced the problem that's the boilerplate language that one would have put a high


was sufficient to any of discriminatory days as an unpronounceable discriminatory basis said however in a saving no to end a footnote to defendants but that doesn't stop you from demonstrating either for purposes of summary


case for example of bailey case out of the six circuit so these k these issues were raised so when the government is collecting dues for a union or in this case the student association oh you know public money that houses have


contract to trigger application of california civil code section seven hundred and seventeen dollars the district court found that the relevant underlying action on is forced delivery of the agreement the words being focused


i believe it medleys burden in the report will say that you can allocate they went all the way to the other side of the equation because they don't give them anything at all but my analogy and my argument below and in this board is that the analogy is to torque


argument has always been that the confirmation fees where we were doing a confirmation trial of all the issues that was with the discovery happening all at once and the confirmation proceeding under one thousand one hundred and twenty nine all at once was


just ask persecution he was entitled to or affordable presumption that relocation would not be possible that presumption would have put the burden on the government to do two things either one identify specific city where petitioner could safely relocate to and then conduct


had an increased likelihood of having those interactions with the police and what we know about his past underscores that as well he's delivered himself to the police once he ran from a taxi another time because he believed he was being followed by unknown individuals


that that's i think that was a concern the judge patel yeah i mean you can say there's a possibility because there are no known sites that have been found but i guess the question i'm asking you is is that enough to


the trial will be contacted and it will be given time to deal appropriately with whatever it's found that there are tribal cultural monitors on site you can go wherever they want and observe whatever they want so i think what the district


the district court's order does anything of the kind mostly what it does is it allows accommodation for the defendants in terms of bottlenecks and other sorts of actions in circumstances but basically says that salomon applies and you shall follow it


nonsensical outcome if you apply a facility are of facility wide analysis in this case and i think that and really and in most cases because when you look at the municipal then you're


unfortunately it's very easy to bally money it's you know he has so we don't need to have an expensive hearing we just have to recognize that the proper valuation is the date when we're going to put that property to


that you can you can cross examine them you can impeach them you can support them you can do all of that and they you know i mean they stand on their own because you're attacking you know the existing policy


there are other specific questions i believe that we've covered our position the specific elements in each of the decisions of the trial court of the standard move you i'm prepared to submit a further question from the


warning me please the court counsel i'm curt peterson to represent why he produce i'll address initially the interpretation span that your honor pointed out playing with like spain to hold that


worship even non essential businesses in new york were permitted without restriction so was this really wide goal between the onerous restrictions on houses of worship and the quite lax


on her which they will try and find out if she is guilty she will not be a matter i don't i don't think we have enough record to to know whether or not the state police will have jurisdiction or


supposed to have a course in person so you have st year students in this country who have no one person courses there is no rational distinction between those students who are permitted to be here in these st year student athletes number three


first instance in the context of that here because the purpose of the statute was to avoid the delay of having to go back to the beginning i think it's very instructive


none of them has exclusive access to an individual robot they're sharing access to a whole group of them and the idea is you have to figure out some way where if one of them is in charge of positioning the robots but somebody else is in charge of


framework for analyzing obviousness just as a matter of summary judgment he clearly drew inferences against kimberly clark and we were the non movement he said things like you know it equally may be true that tyco abandoned its effort to develop this


plane by the terms of the claim is defined as the machine direction the machine direction is the direction in which these things are going they're going in that direction whether it's partially folded or completely folded so the fact that it refers to machine transport plane doesn't make any


to provide require cost price information reloading partners we know that were not in the final your price proposal cannot be evaluated for price real reasonableness and cost real is and that was in the letter dated april eighth two thousand and eleven that page that three eighteen in the administrative


backwards movement of the needle into a stationary guard with the b b c guide to vase the guard is not stationary it must be moved forward to cover the six needles even in that in arm or


not the court has everything the district court had everything it needed and this court has everything it needs to resolve that issue as a matter of undisputed fact the briefs both have pictures where the court can see


the market really if you read through the mark when ruling that issues not presented in conclusion world class technologies respectfully request that the court affirmed


device does those are the words of this court this isn't apparatus playing every argument we heard this morning was all tied to function mr methuen kept saying well summary makes it tells us what the function like the storage is now he's telling us


one another right so the folks as acceptable served always so the servers communicating with multiple things at once the only reason i i think corrected your arm is because here we're dealing with remote devices that are the end of the cellular network so we actually have to have a more robust transmitter


capable of getting that information storing it allowing the user to select from it and then going back and getting the full email we're not only have something that's within the scope of the claim we have something that performing the exact invention


to force ternium to cooperate the didn't do your honor i'm not aware of anything that they could have done short of threatening not to do business with them and the future


ternium a total f a rate of forty eight percent in the prior review and this had an induced ternium to cooperate during the current review leaving congress to conclude that ternium had refused to cooperate in this case to provide its


supports that but then he goes no and then it goes it's the no point did you advise person to going to be readjusted and he says he's funny goes that's true i never did well how can he i mean if the student needs readjusting like


zero four d d or in the context of seventy one zero five a because all it does is to define what the phrase simultaneously can tested claim means and it defines it as


was fifty one zero seven b i submit that the rating scheme for the consideration of the rating or evaluation of service connected disability


is the trigger for the right to charge a fee what you're doing and what the board did and what the court of firm the board doing well is to prevent the veteran from having the right to continue to have his representation under the fee


has interpreted the phrase the case to talk about the matter that was first decided and the matter that was first decided in this case was the right to additional compensation well i can go back to my room example


is the difference between one case and another case has to do with the nature of the disability claim the nature of the benefit saw what was he trying to obtain was he trying to attain service connection


is that the whole action frankly it's our opinion would have to go right back to be canceled because it wasn't a legitimate performance and run a four three o three that's a big point your honor i


zero nine nine eight zero


of the pressure is different in the one case from the other doesn't it and i respectfully disagree how would you read those words other than the way i'm proposing to read them the way i would propose to read them your honor is in


man a small hands big hands big because then there would not refer to any particular value even even if it was the goal of design exactly for your hand the evidence at trial which is which is not contested here is that this the size and shape


face court the issue because we see it in this matter gets distilled down at this point to one of the application of the natural expansion doctrine the vast majority of the record evidence in this case concerning


during the time of mischance selection and well past the time of messina twenty zero five the federal register continued to carry this program yes twenty zero six yes twenty zero seven and that's all


point for disability benefits is certainly something within the the jurisdiction of the c n r in fact the quote in chambers


their amended complaint and rubber mulch had certain counter claims that were never decided by the court other then a kind of only us order that said all claims are now dismiss all right thank you for


documents for an endless amount of positions and try to transform it themselves into your resume and for example let's look at the orbit let's actually look at the lower body and try to translate it even if even if we get that far what it says


you talks about the amount being past due was thirteen forty six forty seven which he had which he admits in that letter that that was not correct at the time you just didn't know because mr allen had


thing the post office contention was that you know i get your ok so let me ask you about that and that is that let's assume hypothetically the postal service cut a check for the entire mom but they said in the


six three of the joint appendix person when he recognizes that what you have there is that b h l was the transfer an entity in it had it on its book values to historical basis of the property property that this is a thirty six year


just sign off on any ran number came from thin air but to independently confirm it that there is no basis to suggest that there is a windfall in that situation and ultimately you have a right to be disagreement then boils down to the


get around to saying we're is the third function saw they say well we have possibly we have the boys reference the boss of a nation and we have the filtering and then we have the other two signals and it's all from that so they say you're


stated in the notice letter which was provided for in the master agreement which was not incorporated into the license the broader point is this all the savings clause says is exhaustion principles apply as they otherwise would


true defendant in the customer suit it is a simple fact of life that a manufacturer must protect its customers either as a matter of contract or good business or in order to avoid the damaging impact of an adverse ruling against our products and since we're on the hook to indemnify or customers if they're found liable


four application tells us that there is such an animal we just can't give it we can't describe it with any more specificity in other words if i make some something in the


question the less simple question is whether they'd be compensated for the time driving from point a to point b it might depend on their point a point b or if they have to spend two hours at the emergency call they are compensated that


licensing letter automatically instills d j jurisdiction that can't possibly be the ball that every time a patentee sends a licensing letter here is a patent that we just got let us know if you're interested in licensing that that would automatically because it's the


impeded if we adopt a bright line rule that just merely identifying and identifying some product or product line in discussions is enough for a declaratory judgment action if two parties got a room together and i said hey i you might want to buy you know you might


derived from miller let's look at the dates that the work help the border help that you near the border how the junior partner was limited to an earliest possible conception


all of that corroborates graham's invention that is one reason to reverse but in addition to that the board legally err when it raised this completion date in its decision that the parties had not addressed and that


know the thirty seven millimeter in the forty to forty millimeter filled with rubber pellets and that was their second invention so they by removing all records of lead shot i think that implies pretty clearly


there i don't want to look at patterns and ted but i think we can look at what they stated in the in the chain of state of things and see what was intended to be disclosed essentially not what they


vitamins what is truly essential for the in device to work that when it isn't gauged it is not sealed against the surface so as to block the flow fluid or because of that undue pressure damage cells so provided that the


we're not talking about contorting the product as shown i've i think you can draw a very reasonable connection between dispensing predetermined amounts


hearing afterwards that mr callan's believed that he would have a different jury deciding his sentence and when he found out the same jury that found him guilty would be finding him whether or not to get the death penalty that's not understanding the process that's not


build his facial features his education knew about the facts of the crime his lack of a gang affiliation so this isn't just hey here's what prison is like this was individualized to mr to mr taylor and the testimony was


seems at least arguably fundamentally unfair that you can add that the government can advance the theory of future dangerousness and then there can be these restrictions on rebutting that


to answer any other questions that you said of curiosity were we to send this back on any of these claims for that matter what do you do you reconvene a new jury for the penalty phase and you


defended it obviously he was on the top the indictment on this is a income tax case where these these folks essentially claimed to have worked for various casinos


that there were no offshore accounts or shell companies and just because you kind of raise this point which you know didn't defense here kind of use dummy corporations i want to know because you know m g m companies like that are real they're not democratic regimes but it's the same


finally you know there was one statement that a couple of statements made about kind of the path of nature about each of these individuals involved that pierce just kind of took information that was coming to them i think that's belied by what the facts are the facts are that pearson timothy spence really came up with this scheme


them if they were going to be testifying that in and of itself would be pretty because an inducement to get someone to testify you know we're going to protect you and will give you in fact they put them all in oakwood institution would be something that should have been revealed


saw the appellant here meet with drug use privately and then close in time he took reg use to third party bank to make cash deposits but on cross examination mr boyd also explained that there were other members who


bond show that it was causing these idea i mean it's not following that that that somehow establishes entrapment you don't you don't you don't look at predisposition in the abstract you look at


no linkage between the statement of going to kill myself and saying i want you to do something criminal and falls and i would go back to the record in this case the statement that


thirty nine years and are just as qualified as doctors who have practiced for forty years but that line has to be drawn somewhere and in the watson case the us supreme court held that the practice of grandfathering


he hasn't pleaded anything along those lines or anything either way about how many people can come up for research of the cation us the only thing i can give an answer to that is judge


you know had had and speaks very broadly about any case involving a grant i would suggest that the court should at least consider whether that should only apply to cases in which the sentences are interdependent or the court recalculates the guidelines range or you know that i conduct the


conviction there i think their claims five six seven eight in the post conviction petition and each of them had these affidavits that you mention dr brahms right that wasn't one of them but but the notion that there were psychic there was psychological and psychiatric testimony available


think any one or two of them would have brought the waiting because you only got to convince one it's not an insurmountable it's not if you thought one of them was was counterproductive but you've done the other without having the other the


and it is attorney attorney jack i agree that led to mitigation investigation he also he did work with attorney thieves but they both testified in haiti is that after the jury returned


i mean i don't know if if there is information about how long they talk but when they are to posed they attack and thieves both describe being aware of this mental health issue and deciding that that


testimony was julie brown said i spoke to him i had diagnosed anything i may have said those words i've come to any diagnosis yet i had not come to any diagnosis yet that's her testimony that's the truth she didn't have enough to work with she just started as


situations and say you know the fact that they reemphasize that you have to check the id doesn't outweigh the fact that this was an exemplary employee who was not on a final warning second final warning


know they have to be watching to see more identical morsi and that's more similar yes but i but i submit that in this case especially with mr duncan you have sufficient similarity


it has to be in our in the thinking of the court of appeals it has to be an amalgamation of the talk of terrorism because he's then just a listener with the his detonate detonating could


so absences that are approved that are for medical leave don't count as a currency ok so what what what would you do come in with a note from your doctor after the fact and it would then be excused if you


yes you can distort and torture the statutory language we think here at most this leads to a bad policy result from the commissioner's perspective and that's not enough to do we think read the language out of


disregard for the effects of that delay is going to have the court has never required that it must be confirmation this conduct is indicated that that's one one example of the kind of behavior that would would support a


summary judgment which they think would vindicate them and spare them the sorts of burdens that they have now a settlement they are a party to this case a settlement is reached between the plaintiffs


the projects and they looted the entire increase when we asked why in discovery these that it was based on the belief that projects like this can increase emissions that's a legal opinion


pushed off and stalling the necessary pollution controls for four more years each year represents ninety premature deaths in total social cost of five hundred million dollars if t t had installed control when it was supposed to in q two


live partially in south carolina where there is a thing called heirs property and you can have multiple people going back generations and generations who think they have one heritage property with their cousins and what not and they file this is the only remedy they have to file quiet


go one way consistent with the time value of money and go the other way consists of the time value money or can say i'm going to give up a little bit on the time value of money in order to retain the option of going one way or the other so the reason why


these code compliance officers know exactly what they're doing the police have just raided the building whether or not they know who actually caused the damage that's a dispute for another time but it's possible that they know if they don't they should know also


in the six circuit decision in u a w there was a standard before an objectors in total to get discovery into multiply but it's not discovery they just want to see stuff that's already there and as you said they want to see it to be


the court there says that's basically the flip side of a predatory pricing case because the defendant your you're assuming the defendant is acting irrationally by jacking up its own costs voluntarily reducing its on profits which as in


would bring this within the limitations he came with he came to see them up until two thousand and six three four times a year and this really he gave them reports that were simply handwritten notes he explained and focused on growth


to terminate his employment within about twenty four hours from the time it occurred and without any investigation at all by greg into the manifestations of the disability itself


differentiates the case but again i want to emphasize that what we're talking about here is not the underlying merits of the claim what we're talking about is whether there's some reason to set aside the previous procedural disloyalty


additional evidence is different in kind in nature and strength than the evidence that was actually presented here it just the state courts recently found that that was not the case this evidence was it was consistent with


on cross examination dr eisenberg said you know they don't all go on to commit murder that somehow dangerousness is mitigated but he forgets what happened on redirect trial counsel got up in trying to rebuild that


appellant we have all the titles to yes right here an interesting case the nice thing about trademark cases everybody gets a gut feel for him when you first hear about him there's there's a lot of wallop there but you get a gut feel right away i'm going to


we did not have a ram or hearing in the district court that that was a mistake there was no reason to have a member hearing because there was no evidence of any extraneous influence on any juror in the case and that's what a ram or hearing this for


signature or his name but two witnesses said it looks like edward to me there's only one hundred in the case and it was faxed from edward snyder's law office and to mr martin for the transaction so i think the inference that the jury made that that was him


accommodation they offer to she did she she refuted they did not offer her reasonable accommodations what they offered were two things first they offered that they would move her desk closer to the restroom and that was not a reasonable accommodation because as she testified


there was never a case that's what i pathetically is no no no that's why i'm saying there would never be a case or you would agree there's no problem there right even though it says attorney general's office it does


dempo doesn't control because all dempo held is that the i a c a displaces a regime of common law torts sounding in negligence so that's an apples to apples comparison and i think all the court was getting at was that the specific


something transpired off the record and perhaps was a little bit hyperbolic hyperbolic but the consistent conduct of the fence counsel subsequent to that demonstrates that they always contested and always


did you consider file an amended complaint i have considered filing a minute complaint but given the district court's decision and there are some strong concerns that i have about issues of claim or issue preclusion


being used to provide context because there was no need to provide context to these statements these were in fact provided to show the things that the government wanted to show that being that mr norton was a drug


case the first case i should say was approximately one hundred thirty five months i believe was a member end of that range and in that case apparently the court believed that that was a substantially this was a sentence


it back whenever it sees fit allowing it to continue to take the payment to induce mr taylor to think that yet part of prima nd you have to interpret any ambiguities against the drafter of the document so to the extent that it


of how we deal with pro se litigants and i certainly i would add something on what the supreme court said because the possibility that judge hamilton mention was raised explicitly by the petitioner in a case called mcneil against the united states


don't believe there was a significant event between the hearing and his death things seemed to become our emergency situation more so than they were even september two thousand and fourteen before the seventy thousand deaths two thousand five


technology just moved on it's the horse and buggy job and so we're going to say we're not going to use equal distribution because we can at least rule out one or two jobs that the economy simply doesn't have any more it's going to be hard


that appointment hadn't taken place he would follow up there's no indication that he did so in this case dr basi was literally watching a man loses ability to walk talk and use his hands in front of him if he was content to wait over sixteen months to send him


degree that that would be a new issue not related to the are not related to the degenerative back conditions that would be on the last aspect ultimately our opinion as to this is that mr walker failed to grief turning as to deliberate indifference as to dr


seven of the guidelines so she she knows it's there and she does talk a lot about why in her view he is not a good candidate for that and that she thinks maybe those recommendations


meant the withdrawal argument was made by the government we did not make the strong argument you really do not feel that there's any expression under the participant on limitation for withdrawal for minor person purchases and that there's nothing


you think that this is a matter of congress not having tried to confer standing in this situation or do you think this is a case of congress trying to confer standing kind of on a maybe in a little one sense but exceeding article three because


same you're right it's different at that level but it's also the same in that we don't have any authority to second guess the board's cement about whether country conditions are changed enough to allow somebody


question so the record is clear all the people in swap including mr cody when he's not running around in this car they use their personal vehicles and they do that and they never had to


our first court case for this morning then is dolan against glaxo smith kline whose blot


they cite after august two thousand and seven and we're telling you that there's a table that's identical it's just a classic legal question like construction of a patent or was a confession voluntary or was there probable cause or did you a miranda rights all these things are legal questions yet they can turn


and they're the ones doing the bio monitoring then you really are putting to public the reason that they have is because they're still manufacturing the product and selling it and face the liability for their own for harm to their own patients right that's one that's goes back to


and pleaded guilty to official misconduct was terminated another incident brought up by misto involved if you go kind of record back and i believe it was two thousand and seven where this elected official was sexually harassing a coworker within his office over


battery is result of those charges and resigned his position there was also some talk again on the manaul is that there were also problems going on within if you go county parks department that again leads to this widespread panic a practice of


adverse report in context or what the common law might have called confession and avoidance but it's not it's not just to say oh that reports a mistake it could be it could be perfectly accurate and there would still be a


case was not settled the representative of the defendant reached a settlement agreement but a class action is settled only with the approval of the judge and that was never received but i would wish you to address my question


respectfully disagree that the that the the stick the c f r and the statutes both say that the asylum applicant has a right to an evidentiary hearing before the judge makes a determination as to the merits of his


showing regulatory showing of extraordinary circumstances or changed country conditions and there was no effort to overcome that so i think you better move on to your withholding and cat claims yes your honor i would just point out that at the i


they're both not credible or they're all credible but you can't say well i'm going to throw these two out because there's no certificate of translation but for his we're going to hold him to every small word in his even though no certificate of translation on that one either the


one of the statements the government the government points to is question so you saw that you didn't see daddy afternoon betty and fighting cancer no what i saw is daddy anthony trying to get that gun from king it immediately after that statement


a few discreet crimes too but as a general matter the definition of possession with intent to deliver possession with intent to distribute does not require a financial exchange over mean aeration or exchange of value and those who


actually that there is a dispute in dissent so let me try to explain if i could why we think this has by what by why both the information and the game itself has newsworthy value the information the statistics


that the legislature should make the other side points to the rocha case i think rope is easily distinguishable in fact distinguishes itself the broke a statute was a fair line that said there's and if there is a privilege but your mental health


claiming what happened here on is that what was a present to brady it appears that the government did you know a type of research that avoid it anything that would show that there was another stress first of


it creates to penalties for violations of the regulations prescribe you're talking about a future case i don't see why that's this case given the fact that you know what we have here


prison exactly because the underlying conduct which again isn't speech is that conduct you are a practicing law at the underlying conduct is illegal so to advertise that conduct would also be prohibited will hear the underlying conduct is defined


there was never a discussion about medical needs there was never a discussion about whether or not there was a decision as to his medical condition to keep that we could keep him here sheriff i don't make that decision himself if you look at everything


by age it sounds like there's a problem if there if it turns out that there is disparate treatment by age there may be a problem but here there's no evidence that anything that caterpillar such to achieve during all of the bargaining that ensued was known as of age


abuse of discretion judge shaw was well aware of the prejudice that said issue it's this is not an academic distinction between one very narrow product universe and an entirely new it's not even an expansion entirely new product universe of


plumber a ridiculous fifty that should have ended the inquiry but metlife moved the goal post it hired neil mcphee a frequently retained non examining file reviewing physician from arizona to say that


case and correctly granted summary judgment in favor of paul revere this policy defines total disability as unable to him perform the important duties of your occupation due to a sickness or injury


employment and that's what the distinction is between an essential duty and simply an important duty all that being a computer programmer that's an important duty for him and he would certainly be here arguing if he couldn't do computer programming or allow i got nothing to sell so i'm


unmanageable to begin with how would a local community be defined but if the local neighborhood would be the city and then how would that play out and rule communities as well i find it very interesting that you go to a different polling


don something that's assigned to him to use for discipline and so there are other means that they're used to not really disciplined to to say to tell of a that the record the inmates are required to obey every command that's given to them by


it not be used against you in the context of the statute congress came to a different conclusion so really the argument here as the supreme court of illinois said is not with her and


a seventy five percent or more material that is not all and then a certain portion that would be adult thank you very much for your american


my point being that i'm trying to think of something that is a religious sermon to religious requirement during the passover one of the primary things is that the flight from egypt


there there is a less restrictive alternative that's available to the state but i don't know why we don't reach that point in this case because it reads the adjective substantial out of statute it asked us whether there's a burden to all of the evidence in this


thank you your honor may may please may i please the court daniel major for the securities and exchange commission this court this case like a little water mr somebody could


asked about this topic and on page one forty three the tax court says c p s in the context the texas spruce lease also must have known this well there was a c p s witness and he wasn't asked about this not by the


think you should have an opportunity to return to the district court and make that decision before just a court judge in and determine once and for all whether in fact he would like to exercise the right to withdraw the plea agreement proceed to trial and if he would have to do that i think he would have to do that on


thing that happened there well i think there are there are always going to be state variations and that's why the guideline want to uniformity the guy who wants a federal definition and what matters is whether there's actual supervision not necessarily


excuse me you say they found him not guilty of the three things they have against mr scott they're related to activities after he was released from prison then they found him not guilty on so that would be an explanation as to why they went back


in working together but this court held in mcdougal case even though you had overlap even you even though you had common actors even though you had similar drugs the conspiracies were different for the purpose of double jeopardy so i would


actually encouraging the court to use the sexual ran or conviction in that way no judge would say that when when one is especially when asked by this particular district court judge what is my authority that this particular district court literally


level bump under the guidelines and so the question is should the court consider that grievous conduct done after illegally being here because but for his immigration violation that would have occurred and the answer has to be


offense level defense counsel says that he also says that you can take those same factors and under thirty five fifty three a look to i mean that's what exactly judge payne did mr


these little facts for an experience criminal defense attorney and weighing in them in the context of his words in july of two thousand and twelve and the way that he conducted these financial transactions


government's weakest argument this notion that a willful blindness instruction could have applied so if if they did if they weren't entitled to that instruction which i think it's clear on the record that's what mr farrel got convicted on got convicted because of the willful blindness


also compels the decision that this search was not consensual in this case the court says since there was what they saw through that crack right they obtained that evidence through their demand here the only


that it was likely that that would drugs would be delivered there and you could get an anticipatory warrant to search any home in the united states if drugs were delivered and that's what we have here the net warrant authorized the search of any computer in the


ways and so we have you know this court's eddie in decision recognized that in the one particular context conspiracy carried this common law meaning and because of the presumption that the supreme court had set up that absent contrary indications we apply


not raising the objection that could be something to examine the evidence you're hearing turning to to the residual cost cases that my colleague reference though he does cite burton it was true that that conviction


there is no evidence to support it that's correct ron ok then i didn't hell does that not within the waiver to the same degree is it that it did not fall within the way


specifically talked about in the plea agreement this enormous amount of other relevant conduct does not well that that's our position your honor the fact that the government did mention the relevant and did know what other relevant conduct at the


if i thought your set of we knew about these for whatever reason we didn't turn them over that's a bad faith action and then your briefing away you said how is that that was not required we don't we're not it's not something that


told by the question that so you didn't argue that it wasn't part of the instructions from the jury the government argued that it was not in dollars your honor that that's


also think that it in terms of visually what happened it has everything that is relevant to this case and it but the audio there is a difference in my view the court doesn't have the government's exhibit three from lipscomb


you and it might make a difference to the outcome i


would be for the sentencing court to reissue its order to grant an adjustment or barnes on his sentence the remedy is not ordering the bureau of prisons give him credit for this time served


they were based on mistakes made by the lower court so they're when you're not going to the lower court you just said i find your client totally incredible i just did not believe anything that came out of his


of that went back to look for further complaints additional complaint verify anything my question obviously has been not been clear the record was clear on that these many complaints how many were there is one of my colleagues twenty is what the sorry more than twenty years more than


i don't believe toiletries were mentioned your honor but i do think there were a number of things in there but look at certainly the vast majority were gun we've conceded that firearms there was no p c for


agreements were fake there is no evidence that the loan agreements themselves or these reimbursement agreements were fake they were fabricated that they were done after the fact rather other simply evidence with respect to a later in time post


meier and in that case the defendant gave the attorney notes to use to coach a witness before the grand jury testimony so both of those simply stand for the proposition that you can use an attorney you can use a third party


circuit you don't need the fact that they were documents were submitted in response to a subpoena right in order to to prove prove their claim here we have the added fact that there was a subpoena


thousand and fifteen that was not utilize the there on the p s r just that it is the fact that there was another potential added to make that two thousand and fifteen more


well i don't know your honor it's the record shows none of the counsel below objected so i'll concede that nobody did object and no one moved for recusal but you know i don't want to beat that but you


and the court's explanation make clear that it did engage in a thoughtful sentencing process and part of the reason for the explanation is to ensure that the public does have confidence that individualized sentences were arrived here


years you said there was a gap in offending conduct and every opportunity he got he was out there i counted at least six or seven incidents and that probably more and so that it doesn't advance the ball because all the experts


exposure to children when when one does that for one's own sexual gratification is that enough to be molestation out of the statute i believe so your honor again the definition of child molestation the regulatory definition is


escalation just given the sheer speed of his offending he responded within thirteen days of this and we take into account the reaction by the voice in other words if the boys had seen him it was just a casual observation at a distance


years and this defendant has the least amount of control over his in both those of anybody i've ever seen and she said i've talked to people in my office and their greed is that that that does that play


ross was not a collector of child porn he deleted images after he saw them now the government argued that this was aggravating but the defense that it showed an amount of self control he was in amassing a large amounts of pornography


eleven year old under his care about a year before the arrest in this case and in this case judge mots went through the guidelines found the guidelines considered the thirty five fifty three factors explain his reasons using those factors did not


that standard from when and with all due respect i think there's one critical word used in blue and subsequently in a caucus that should not be used moving forward and that is the requirement that the district court address every


the other side of course the government agrees that dissent


that was said in private versus kentucky which is right state supreme court case it's a pretty bright line rule once sir is expired or service expire and your conviction is final and while that sometimes may seem unfair to


testifying that he picked up the phone to be the phone call and it's that act cries the equivalent of a verbal statement correct ok this sort of conduct is the equivalent of a verbal statement ok and then when you go on and look at the


plain meaning plain text of the statute which has been exists for a while but if i could i'd like to back up the first point that i started with this morning which is that miller's play in holding simply doesn't apply to states who do not have mandatory life


guideline that's a very different scenario than the one that mr wedding presents which is not seeking a reset and saying he's asking the court to fix an ambiguous error and i think that this court could consider as relevant hits prior decision i know that


offender got mine and yet the government has essentially required us to proceed in this way and try to come to this court i'm just seek relief under the statutory scheme and we're asking the court find that there is enough ambiguity in the way that the scheme works with the


that particularly wrong but i do know that there were instructed on filmy murder and that the district attorney the elected district attorney tried the case argued felony murder two he went why did the poor say you have to find that he actually shot mr


identification all they do is suggest jury instructions jury instructions be given on the issue across racial identification not to throw the identification out not to say it's not admissible and even in those jury


hundred watts of light coming toward the store i think what we have to assume is that that person did not have facial hair because by the state's argument there would have been sufficient light for him at least to have


i agree with the observations made about the broad language in the linear case i think effectively what secretary of state's office is asking you to do is to overrule it there and i understand while they've attempted to distinguish it to me it's a


brief page twenty nine there footnote number three talks about the summit will opinion as i understand they may not understand that's why i'm asking the question view these post observation conferences


comments by the principal talking about we don't really need a union representative here she just makes things more difficult and then there are multiple things as in that the letter from the prince about the memorandum from the principal which was back loaded them a brief talking about how warning


elevated the suspicion perhaps but the facts of this case did not establish that that reasonable suspicion based upon what the officer observed now the officer probation officer also checked


nervously or perhaps even go as far as said that there was or there was some type of a suspicion that he was under the influence of drugs at the probation office it doesn't necessarily follow for reasonable so reasonable in this consideration that he stored


and that doctor was not compliant she finally had to go to baylor and it wasn't until september thirtieth less than two years before we filed against this defendant that she was told on the phone by some person


smelly act and the court expressly rejected it saying that the court had adopted ricky and there was no reason to abandon ricky in the context of a wrongful birth case with respect to the


the pendency of the ongoing investigation until we can find out more now it's during that time that they also search the vehicle the vehicle search was completely acceptable under michigan versus long in that case the supreme court held that


evidence rather than to secure the safety of his officers has no relevance here is far as that's concerned the united states supreme court has instructed in ren and in scott that an officer subjective


statement to d c a fast investigative rhonda said that the defendant quote unquote puts his finger in m g s anus which implies more than one time this court can also look to m g s out of court videotape statement and look


any concerns regarding inappropriate influence on the jury but as we see in this case defense counsel repeatedly assured the court that the defendant the doctor who would not testify regarding


standard and the impending codification of these roles that the proposed rule seventy four for example deals specifically with experts able to offer an ultimate opinions in a case and what's interesting is the analog the federal analogue to proposed


said that the state could enter into a lease is of fifteen years in one nine hundred eighty three the amendment added those words subject to renewals the only other change at that time was a description of the premises so the legislature obviously


also raises some issues about the legislative history here first cmos admits that if it's an ambiguous the court should not go to legislative history and we believe the statute is unambiguous and therefore the legislative history is not really relevant


is subject to special rules the general assembly has limited substantially the building of the state entering to lease a property it has put the best interest of the state requirement into


into play because you can't think of an idea or a time when a plaintiff would actually put something in a complaint that would be against his best interest like self defense so so what is the insured getting for his bargain on the


but i believe that the second judges it is the correct judge to make that determination because if you don't have a procedure like that and that's the procedure the that the next question you mean what difference does it make the second why


second judge justice mcbride's point in the point of just k who agreed with her in the other dissenting justice make when they quote the language of the statute they quote the phrase upon the filing of the petition they don't


as a practical matter in


examination of a party bound over to keep the peace that's not a very involved proceeding i believe it's for things that we we have to do things that must be done a plenary hearing is not a requirement it's a way of charging


the the short answer is that yes that it does involve both it may be a different set of analysis and part of your question can be divided up into another sad subcategory where there is a person who is not in


f which was decided not long ago the resolution of that case was under strict no grounds but this court i believe did have a concern where the state had presented a complaining witness did not ask any substantive questions about the elements and


argument wonder if there is an alternative basis to get to where you want to go as a result of what you think is an abuse of the process and the right of the court to control their docket separate and apart from the separation of


lots of laws that exist to prevent people from driving drunk or from driving without a license it's not like there are courts that are hyper says garrett it's not up for the insurance company or run a car companies to try to police the rules of the road


yes you could rule that he was not rational when making that decision because he gave three reasons and this also goes into the standard of review this is a question where we're looking at undisputed facts so this is not something this is something


that the the general motors own they were not using it at all but the government came in occupied that property and they were required to pay a fair market rental value for that property general motors


now i want to talk for one second also about these other cases other states it's not true that all states have adopted the state's position here as i said the ohio supreme court came down firmly and are on our


farmers favor finding that the claimants in this case actually parents are not entitled to under insured motors coverage under its policy thank you if you come


no protection under the fifth amendment prohibitions of the double jeopardy clause and even when the evidence is that minute against him he cannot inform the jury of his acquittal is a double standard in which the state gets all the advantages and it is inconsistent with notions


each time i come here to argue and i hope i have in that respect at least serve the court well thank you


to be able to keep a portion of his pension when someone like mr wells who was a very low level employee and couldn't affect all of the citizens citizens of the state through as criminal conduct should be stripped of all of his


said whether he does whether he doesn't have the discretion in the same manner doesn't reveal whether he did he thought he didn't have to suppress double negative yes it could could you could you rephrase the question so i make


again i i believe the defense counsel and i read the record differently or read the state's argument at that hearing differently and i i would refer the court in the white brief there's a transcript of that hearing beginning at page eight forty six


you i'm not saying that would be sufficient for some type of written notice but at that point with the limited information that he gave you talks to an agent in the bank or elsewhere in the agency is probably not probably no coverage that's right the eight


sued you've got to reach out you have to ask do you want to help next to us and say that's a good rule that created a lot of business in the state of illinois for insurers bad public policy it's not bad public policy


is i there is no indication either in the statute or in the ruling in this case that there was any possibility that the commitment to conditional release was still up for dispute so the court couldn't


actually testified that they rode the bus together on the day that breyer testified testified the defendant in fact on the day this resident did not live in chicago who lived in detroit and came to chicago visiting he had one piece of luggage with them or another friend


facts without the testimony of the defendant the jury would be left to wonder well what happened after eleven fifteen they don't know the chicago police department testified what happened after one fifteen bickered not what happened why


my client is independently not eligible for supervision because of this case proceeded to a delinquency finding and there's debts and there's an independent basis there for denying supervision


simply throw out everything that had been agreed to is really fundamentally different than than giving into judge's discretion up front and saying what what is your decision and then living by that what gives them the discretion where does the discretion come


prosecutor is exercising discretion at a stage of the proceedings traditionally within the prosecutor prosecutor's discretionary realm there can be no separation of powers problem and here are the prosecutors exercising its discretion as


well and in those three cases the court never reached the ultimate issue of whether can crank oh could be applied to pretrial additionally in those cases just because there didn't happen to be in that


second affords an adequate opportunity to assess the allegedly erroneous release and it says the third reason is merely general objections and subsequently raise an appellate arguments which the trial judge was


never would have been involved in this job this is the extra it was supposed to come up from the outside to go in and the reason why the reason why those gentleman became involved at all is because he m w didn't


word in this statute is demonstrates the timing and manner of the demonstration are not regulated by the statute rather it is up to the trial court to determine whether cause i'm prejudiced has been sufficiently


this will knock you out of your rd year because we're going to we don't we're going to change what we think that regulation means i mean it's just it's ultimately i mean i hate to get up and say a bang to say gosh this is unfair but gosh this is unfair and for and for the regulated entity


they moved in in two thousand and eight and immediately upon moving in they began experiencing water intrusion issues they contacted the general contractor who built the home who performed inspections and proposed solutions


i really and think i can emphasize enough how paralyzing this would be the department of health and just in louisiana regulates over three thousand five hundred health care facilities and they certify another


summary judgment the bankruptcy court did not follow that th circuit precedent and ultimately rejected an affidavit by s c property holdings bice president may refer to it that is s c ph to save


credible evidence of a sole superseding cause to the claims administrator so your honor a little bit of background b p is not present in the proceedings before the claims administrator b p doesn't have any visibility


thirty two dollars on page thirty two dollars they say that they can recover seventy seven million dollars here even if all that was there were all of the loss was caused by something other than this bill just in


forth for a while right and so how many times do they have to do the back and forth your honor mr butler filed a number of settlements to his initial complaint and the magistrate correctly construed those as part of the initial


foundation no longer exists that's emitted it's uncontested that the trust instrument provide it's that if that entity ceases to exist as a tax qualifying


no guaranteed income they would not have and they didn't the entire agreement was that proxima be split into the two funding trusts and those two funding trust would fund the two thousand asians and for whatever reason and


me with mcconnell in the here's the reason why in in the mcconnell case the bankruptcy court conducted a trial where the one of the principal


mcintyre is coming up might have been hit but mister tucker acknowledges that he had been told to places and clearly that was not happening the officers were having to struggle to places and behind his back so at that point mister tucker has


that the citizen thinks why in the world are you chasing me at midnight because of a brick like that that's not enhanced in the graham factor danger that's just a person who really upset that they're being arrested


to judge made law this is an act of congress not a judge made law your orders for a final point i'd like to turn to the personal jurisdiction aspect because this has been so heavily litigated


weddings and includes his initial buy in of two thousand eight hundred dollars and the casino's obligation argument is that exceed i was an obligation under wheezy end of gaming laws to redeem in cash those chips


commit fraud so you count compound at the issue as to the sellers they allegations are clear direct and sustained just because the fraud is is so direct so not


mr smith lacked the jurisdiction to file successive p b s and there are two rational issues before we get to what i want to focus the majority of my time on which is the clear and convincing evidence of drumsna as actual as


instant case the district court err in finding that the petitioners nd hideous petition was timely based on equitable polling nd the district court's dismissal of the petitioners nd hay vs petition should be affirmed because the petitioner


this court certainly could find that those were arabs and those are ignorant but then it would still analyze it in light of the other evidence to say what's an armless and that's what you can do here and i think that's why the importance of the language in jones more than thirty years ago is


had a standard of care and you allege that in the one case but what about the the case of the oral contract does there is no allegation akam plane about what the world promises were that it contained this type of standard of care language so


attorney or ineffective assistance of counsel so they let him but i read that case to this court has the power to go ahead and look at the futility argument to go ahead and look and see if there were sufficient reasons for the district court


jones in your footnote twenty three and presumably foster you cite constitutional provisions of louisiana law that still is it exists today the support the five that linkage is


case of vote dilution this was after he held in eight days trial where he weighed the testimony and determine the credibility of twenty seven dollars witnesses including seven experts and considered over three hundred and


th circuit cases on that issue and also the district court cases as well i was struck by the intense fact intensive analysis that the court typically goes through in trying to reach that decision


working of this well he directed these entities to pay some of the expenses on behalf of oracle oil operated the well but as it turns out when we were in court in front of judge morgan


national and also my opponent were actually can see that no one really was able to figure out whether this was a tribute to the plaintiff or the attorney and if you cannot make that assessment then you cannot provide a


and that reflects the supreme court's language schappert that opt out only includes burglary if it's committed in a building or an enclosed space but we disagree


ram so this is about drawing the line where burglary normally draws the line and so we know from james that you're blocking in someone's yard that might be dangerous and it fell under the residuals office because that


indicated before which is if o p s so or director main are decides that some positions don't need to exist anymore they can abolish those positions but this is not just a reduction in force this is anything that is consistent with operational


provide additional information with regard to the right to intimate association claim selecting an oarsman claim and the overbroad claim i believe that's are all right thank you think


brief we have the actual policy there for the court to look at and i don't know how the policy ever be less based it states where mantic or intimate personal or other close relationship between an employee


not really reading or viewing it that would then it is some requests to him in the pleadings themselves but i mean you've answered what you did some issue to repeat the question but once counsel


sixty eight and all i'm saying is that was a really good idea that's a really good idea for a way to sanction somebody now i went through her release let me say it just quickly one more time the rd condition is a condition fracture so you can have


and i would like to get a cup of coffee from but that's a very good question doesn't it and another month and i think we mentioned our brief that at that point that the jurisdiction of this court is is finished so there's no more jurisdiction goes


damaged before that diagnosis date then the question is does contra nonviolent them apply and the trial court never discussed it next the best authority on the issue of consul nonviolent them is found in the case this court's case


importantly a problem with the manufacturing of that bolt now suit was filed two years after the bolt failed the court this court when finding that suit was timely filed held that the one year prescriptive


most importantly let's look at what the substance was one then when he testified that he looked at the label he testified he looked at the label it was no discussion about the medication guide and the medication guide is the only i repeat it's the


actual control is required but if you don't want to do that you can just say that whatever the standard the evidence of the record here is insufficient because of the gap on that relationship between the sicko group and i think that the other two theories


salt horse from one into the lot to your other we're talking a fifty one million dollar project involving one hundred foot concrete pilings you order materials based on where you plan to start and where you plan to finish so when they


f would have to ignore the summary judgment opinions that are routinely written and analyzed to include a statement of fact as neutral as possible in one section a


capacity this is the same position that mrs williams had been trying to get going back to one thousand nine hundred and five and that's actually what precipitated her lawsuit is when a white female was given that chief nursing officer position in two thousand


lawsuit just didn't know what it was about anyone this intrigue someone found a lawsuit in that at that level what more to know what was it about so this is an issue of fact to be determined by the fact finder and a


ok what are these regional offices and what are these job site trailers tell us what these on and they provided that explanation your honor and they provided it to the claims administrator the claims administrator took that information and presumably laid


electrical transmission equipment and it was a sixty five million dollars coin that equipment is sold across the nation and even in light of that decision in west being a week before the howard case


three we're not going to rely on that exclusively that puts her in the general population on some and you haven't answered my question where would it be low enough in the general population to come within the regulation number one and number two where's that evidence i


think if the evidence that she reads at a pace slow or her processing speed in her reading comprehension is slower then the general population which i would put it at a fifty percent what general


grant that's a little problematic how do you simplify it you know every single thing that when you have like an expert arsonist testifying but but still it should have done more with that to of i will of a reserve rest my


a number that's different from what he could be hearing instead what they're doing is they're throwing mud they're saying the loris isn't credible because she didn't have all of the permanent work prescriptions yes she did overpowers the question is not credible because he doesn't show swelling


an involuntary medication petition the future one of the criteria is going to be suffering in teacher ratio of ability to function it doesn't have to be the exact facts it's actually the courts definition of what


predominant prevailing in the army from missouri is and in illinois of course it's a cause for any cause so that's basically how he treated this so that the commission had on one of one hand the opinion of dr bassman that it contributes and is


clearly his attention was waning during the testimony and it reading the record it becomes clear that the longer that he testified the less he was paying attention to the questions and started doing these bizarre outburst


must we consider the videos independently or can they can take them so i mean i think they can be considered independently should they be considered independently


was the one who wasn't giving him what he wanted which was then and on exclusivity with him she was the one who was afraid that he was going to freak out and that ends that she had another suitor and she


list of factors that the courts have identified and then there's also the weight to be applied to those factors so it gets that even though the mention is made of the standard of review we end up getting what appears to be had a


the second issue in this case is equally troubling in that there is evidence medical evidence establishing causation from the doctor who wrote a letter and said that these issues with his left arm which


she did a reasonable person would not be of the opinion that their injury would work related or she should have been filing the application for adjustment one i think that's exactly right but but but then you have to look at the facts cases


i personally would probably have made an affirmative allegation after my denial but it is still a denial in the last because that really was not a true statement again splitting hairs but that's what we do


ok but we're not i'm not talking about increasing i'm talking about doing what was supposed to have been done in the first place for example if there's a mandatory fine that should have been imposed that


now it's up to the courts because fine with that i believe so and i believe that if you look at subsection b the fact that it talks about shall base its determination on the reported level of impairment as one of the factors


restrictions whatsoever related to his arms he starts trouble driving for a different company and he starts going downhill he's doing the exact same thing the exact same headed on doubt that repetitive with a new employer is


parties relative to this topic is the respectful submission in particular given the photos it appears of this juncture it is on the second part of them


in fact they were quite so determined in the language of their motions or perverse to point out to the court a host of reasons why the transit district had not complied with the condemnation act in this


work that was done in this instance it appears clear that the records were generated after this case was heard and i finally determine what was the


caused oppression fracture in his back


residence but it was also known as the yoga house in carbondale illinois and it was open to the public for meditation and yoga i think the specific members met on sunday evenings but he did not testify that other times they


husband had to leave his here twelve years later and if the park were to agree that we're not allowed to consider this this amount of warrant divorce then necessarily you would have to say


case law the clearly belongs under the samberg of two thousand and eight because the injury didn't break the causal connection and then you apply valvo the four but for the fact that he had the


up with that that this is this is impeachment of my client my client was referencing the the last job that he had that day working on truck thirty zero two i think it was and he said that after bending over and


findings of the arbitrator the commission and the district judge it over in fayette county this matter was tried as in one thousand b c in which she was seeking additional treatment for that pullback condition back in november of two thousand


believe that he was on the side of the road and one of the options was to give the car saying no you've got all these other options isn't that what the instruction talks about is whether


that the court misinterpreted these factors and did not apply the evidence from the case properly to these factors which which mandates are reversed


how the health departments funded and so the solid waste purpose of the money of the tipping is expended by the county to the extent that you ship it to another coming back to get that money so i would think that that's why they're opposed and certain in


proceedings and file subsequent to what you filed and whatever else you want to file the posting counsel filing what they want to file and have the trial court dealing with that i think


would go on to property that someone else is claiming is there and that their deeds specifically excludes i'm still having trouble wrapping my head around that just from a


kitchen of the fall and they will be able to have such expert testimony because again the slope from the slab which would first catch that you're being water is going the wrong direction they don't have any evidence to show that the slope of the sidewalk


whether or not the city acted in accordance with statute and whether or not the city about those entitle to tour immunity act again it's the city about his position that there is no jurisdiction whatsoever for any of those issues that they should not be considered by the court


tipped her off about which school the children were in that she couldn't contact them and i'm talking about the nationally the one in vegas and then later they want to found so i don't think it necessarily makes the father a slave to providing all that information to the mother if she is truly interested in these


workers compensation disability benefits or some law does that mean tell tell us what to believe that provision stand by itself means well oh it's an exclusion means they're not going to pay for that


role says you can't do that as do the second step which is that normal daily activity would cause the same diagnosis just because that may be true it doesn't go back and again step number one which is that not a causation was


and that makes sense because it was an income producing property it would have been clued in child support calculate what was a concession by the mother was that kathy said you can apply the net income


can a reasonable person say that's good enough knowing that he knows what he knows he knows what an accounting means over there's nothing right in writing about


please the court first of all i think it's important to point out that john paid every dollar of child support he was ordered to pay john paid every dollar of net income from this rental property towards the boy's college put three boys through college we can college washington university


addition by the mother in this case regarding her own mental health issues she has a history of mental health difficulties as a youth had attended a suicide she admitted to having attempted suicide and to late two


for the protection of safety of these individuals who are notices including the limited to rendering security services such as stationing security at the residence installing a security alarm installing surveillance equipment


taken under consideration by the trial or any means decision in regard to custody ok but in the meantime between march and august the following year all these things happen custody was changed


his own personal assets but in this particular case he received unhappy because he failed to invest mine at all council made a big deal out of it in his brief saying others there was no harm no foul no real damages because we didn't prove what the


there's nothing in the law that says we have to have a hearing or anything else going there is it goes on repeatedly for several lines it seems that the board was concerned that they needed to have a hearing i'm in somebody said


to a related person her clients but to her mother's company and you expect us to buy into all of that i have to tell you


biological parents or the attendant adoptees it's in the total best interest of their work that we're not sure how this car but really herself that she benefits from it but certainly her family benefits from it


finder of fact basis as opposed to the best interests of discretionary call reversible error wouldn't be factual determination of there is an issue as to who the


sign a license to iraq and i realize is this case at least a little different from some other things we have been doing here because most of those are cases where the per the in and he was never license granted that was signed a bunch of people were never licensed


trouble here with the volume is i guess to is this council seated in the room best place so that we can see every one


of fifty states to be able to determine effectively what federal officers do in applying this and i would say for the number of cases one is an older man a letter point seems a little wobbly to me because that's what the federal court claims


admitted the officers had a thirty minute thirty seconds to a minute to decide whether or not to use force in this revolving struggle under that particular circumstance the


all inferences in favor of sentry and that they would find st


before this faculty judicial board that we've been running around about they won't allow us to call all the witnesses that the but it's that it's a potential hearing i'm


this with respect to the lack of jurisdiction as well as the failure to recognize there are standards assuming that we get to the merits that the court has to me is it your argument that the record


wrong because that wasn't before the judge what the standard should be as i believe his judgment were at all point out in the united states versus chapter in this relying on arizona you look at the process you want to make certain that it was deliberate not


only thing that could occur was the declaration of mistrial so to say that under those conditions and the trial judge as is a man that he abused his discretion there's there's just no precedent for that there's


convincing evidence and this court has said time and time again the fact that there could be in another interpretation even reasonable doesn't make the interpretation of the trial court under reasonable right


found i believe that the city's hardship is and not being able to enforce this ordinance not being able to regulate this sort of conduct all over the city not just in front of six flags because certainly there thank


question is why wait until after sending you ip extermination letter to have kenny supplied the switchboard i think that gil bain rightly did not


they had seen on may sixteenth and knew were the surveillance equipment they would also have known it could be the there was no physical way for those cameras to have recorded what happened on may seventh so you're saying the physical configuration was such


seems not to really be responsive to the at least the complaint and i understand there are sort of problems between the complaint summary judgment material but there certainly are things listed in the complaint that


was that that had to do with his requests to identify additional evidence and so i think he was looking for discovery that try and identify well regardless if they if the record is incomplete and does not show


constitution grants congress the power to pass laws congress did that when it passed the statute of limitations are you basically arguing that the regulation is an unreasonable interpretation of this that you know i'm arguing that the agency unreasonably apply the regulation such that


fact both by his assertion of what he was told even though he did put it in the complaint and your agreement as to what the law is it didn't matter it was irrelevant but it does matter because when he came back in the


store that i don't think you have to say this inference is more likely than that and for him there are situations where you do that under the reform act but here did jim arcus set out a


that such as imitations doesn't run until the defendant knows he's been harmed and knows if the defendant caused the injury they didn't leave they didn't know either one here they thought that what was being given to them and what had happened to them was the normal


now why can't we find then the living designs was simply applying the injury discovery rule as described by the supreme court and really applying it the way it ought to be applied you lose


and and clearly i mean this is this is an unusual result i don't think anybody has a good explanation for exactly what happened but i thought the


knowlton talk about if you would what what or what didn't miss henman or home and i'm sorry spent most of her time on which is that even if there is such a right which she just spewed it was not clearly established is lipscomb


one of the cases that did quote the lipscomb phrase minimally adequate care and services appropriate to the agent circumstances of the child the thomas case again was a case about a group of girls who were being abused sexually and physically


it has to be dispositive of a claim or defense and what i'm hearing my colleagues say and i'm not hearing a response from you is that if it doesn't dispose of a claim or defense and under rule seventy two it can't be dispositive but it does as to global foundries


tailored their orders to reduce the burden on s m l us and global foundries no court of appeals has ever found an abuse of discretion under circumstances even remotely like these and indeed this court's most recent published decision on


correct me but i didn't think that there was an argument that it was improper to order discovery of the documents as exists solely within the united states so i mean what you


compensation or some other form of compensation i should say in lieu of a return of his property seized me i have a sort of factual question and it may or may not be relevant but do i understand correctly that


first one is for title seven violations on the basis of a number of protected characteristics there is no merit to that claim because it is time barred as she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies timely with


granting of the rule fifty motion was correct because plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence as to causation he needs to have shown that jacob's acts remissions were so closely related to the deprivation


you agreed that even for regular meal there is a presumption of regular delivery it's a week presumption that's rebuttable i mean that is what's also lays out your honor and so how was that presumption rebutted just isn't enough just to say i


brief to mean any legal action or process any act done by authority of a court of law step taken by either party in the legal case and it goes on and it's very broad and i think the distinction the


two rounds of actions that were filed by the tribal council in the tribal courts they appealed an initial round and one in the tribal court of appeals it was remanded back to the tribal court the tribal court rather than have further proceedings dismissed the case with prejudice


to police and testify in proceedings without fear that they'll be sued in retaliation for doing that we need public officials to to do their job without being sued in retaliation for doing that and we need courts to apply these muties when presented to them that


it's a harder question i'll grant you whether he should have been at the search in the first place i do think that the state tax law which no doesn't allow the c h p to come in but it does require business owners to produce these records and make them available and


every several years and in light of the fact that unfortunately in our society today these officers are the st responders this is the negligence claim is based on the theory that there was the zero to duty to exercise reasonable care


v that m v is subject to to what we want i'm to do this came up for declaratory relief because of the assertions made by the union that turning on the audio would be a criminal violation and


agreement and so i think it would be helpful to all the parties to have a final resolution from this court or even just affirming what the what the district court did in regards to the collective bargaining agreement but


secretary to publish that list that is federal recognition as a political relationship a government to government relationship between united states and the tribe and that's how it happens the


the reason why your honor is because desert palace was aware of first options it distinctly distinguished it does or palace was our court and granite rock is the supreme court so once the supreme court says we would apply first options in the absence of agreement why doesn't that


no but the thing is there is no requirement that it be challenge for the propriety because again a law enforcement i was just getting at the context of the statement that was right right but again when you look at the allegations in the complaint the same public


debates that the castle a case has been clearly established whether it's squarely governing whether it's similar circumstances which is the white case or well as be an obvious case under any of those standards


follow up will he do the use of force report it was reviewed by his supervisors he was not disciplined they found this to be a reasonable use of force under the circumstances and if you're talking about m n l claim ratification


even if you find this to be excessive force one incident is not enough i'm not talking about malcolm i'm talking about the other question i think you've answered it did you conduct an internal affairs investigation internal affairs in this is in her


she was being moved away she was staying at the castor camp campus and with she would be placed in a rear end in this special day class with like peers prefer performing at that same level between kindergarten and third grade and so the response your


on how the g i he wants to operated self make policy make any got it so what's your allegation with respect to the individual least in individual capacity tribal defendants what did they


have been sued ok does that laid out anywhere in this complaint to explain how these individuals were not acting as tribal officers not acting in that capacity in the initial paragraphs talking about who the different defendants are paragraphs eleven


case i think what's important on that front is that one and the term nation came later on in the general they say that it's an eighty three right so we don't have to get into discriminatory and no i'm sorry i misunderstood your question i


record evidence that when the company received that adverse lot decision by the administrative law judge that company counsel communicated that to the client but certainly in july of two thousand and fourteen the l


you know i'm mostly a sort of because you don't need to lean but you you may you may need to prove in this case that since you're standing in the shoes of the insured i can i can understand arkansas a


argument of the respondent is that we should look at kansas law which uses a completely different standard and does have a case from one nine hundred twelve that says you look at the entire property missouri our has from one


one page page ninety nine which is what he points to repeatedly in his brief but should be read in total the policy declarations begin on page eighty nine and they conclude on page ninety nine the


because we don't the derivative jurisdiction one thousand four hundred and forty one we don't need that but it but what you're distinguishing this is to say that we can go back and determine whether or not that was even a pending case even if a district court in the nebraska made that


incomplete however in every other case that i can find there's something in the record that shows the person was lyon and in fact even the case today mr mcgee was pointing to things in the in the record that demonstrated why


in the same range is available to the district sentencing judge that would be available if the triggering offense was a drug offense versus a weapon offense that this was yes that changes


uphold a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm but we can't convict him of possession of an unregistered that unless there is proof that he saw or handled that or in some other way knew that it it had to be


percentage of all one iota change any of the other factual findings well he he made in your view it in and again with all due respect to judge or they are not significant i believe from a fair


one and then there's another i think just a little twist a sober designated driver and those two different things a sort of well not in this case because she was sober and the driver she was a sober designated driver the to


seeking what you want new trial i wouldn't know they're asking for a new trial and again judge erickson has made findings twice and you know he's he's now full time on the circuit you are a new trial new judge new


burglary this is a divisible statute as with regard to the underlying crime the state has to prove what the underlying crime committed was if that crime has intent


burglary offense so your your position some some burglaries under minnesota law would continue to qualify and some would not under the intent argument on our part yes and no primarily our


turning to the jurisdiction issue both in front of the district court and as well continuing here on appeal the defendant's rule sixty b motion to reconsider is nothing more than a trojan horse to attack the underlying order denying his


c competitor during those ten months the employee can buy out of either of those obligations by paying back the training costs and maybe it's worth just taking a step back for a moment to to set sort of a context here of of the program that is


forget that this all started seven years ago with a pretty simple man in mr black to be trying to do a pretty or what seemed like a pretty simple thing at the time which is to report a very minor injury to his employer as he was required to do


issue but the way this instruction was worded and really the sequencing of the wording is important in these instructions particularly given this court's guidance so our argument is at the