those individuals those longer enforce like any other loan that the tribe tribal credit issues those individuals at the moment the funds are transferred had a legal obligation to repay those an obligation you tried


alleged victims or all of the individual people who took out loans in this case were tribal members and each and every loan has been collected on this as of the date of the second


the store although we had the testimony of can't this thing was charged this indictment was charged fast you can feel and ask the hungerford and it was during this process which canfield himself pled guilty and agreed to cooperate see by the results


item is so tiny that you cannot strip it without the blotter paper or whatever else the carrier medium is the question is is is the use of the item necessary for either the distribution of or the consumption of the drugs


the record evidence is that accounts were used for restaurants a restaurant has to take all of the cash that gets generated back out and go down in the past that on a daily basis so they have certain accounts for certain restaurants but fee waivers


trial that had reversed in the court was saying at that point you know the plaintiff has to have the burden of establishing the essential functions so as we went into the trial this case the question of what were the essential functions


through and looked at the practical aspect is just impossible for a plate of a few billion without the information without the ability to do the testing and come to the jury and say these are the essential functions by my secretaries and more about their


as i understand it and the lack of a more specific instruction may be relevant on the on the issue of denial of the witness an opportunity to testify


uses in dark situations the fact that mr cheatham the people to cross examine and them about the fact that the conditions were dark is an entirely different issue and much more limited and did not provide the jury with the scientific framework to


understand that you can say yes but i don't think the fact that it was closed before he was found guilty goes anywhere i don't like the fact not every conviction is you can be convicted out of battery where you break someone's nose and you can be


earl there's no question that the standard view in this case is noble when the abuse of discretion standard applies on a motion for summary judgment or a motion for summary judgment is merely a conduit through which the district


the district court exercises discretion to allow discovery but in that exercise of discretion we were given two people went to the polls and we deposed those people


california and montana and if the court were to adopt a rule that says the district court would have to come to understand in a way that


for any sentence and frankly even that cap isn't really a cap because if the court finds the first dangerous time there are a sexually dangerous offender the court can exceed even that stuff but


really two things i want to do and one of them is that very issue i think that judge hogan asked the wrong question when well i'm asking the same wrong question i mean the reality the thing is i mean if you look if you think that my analogy to copyright law


basic questions of reasonable reliance on basic questions under the washington consumer protection act that have been defined by the washington supreme court in the hangman ridge case about what constitutes a public interest impact or to


and those are the allegations it's not anything that has to do with the merits that make the amendment any amendment unable to cure the defect in the complaint i think thank you with a million questions thank you very much


yes case and this course decision in the ruhr indicate that this type of waiver is valid so even if the issue has been preserved as a matter of state law even if it could have been raised on the hill it would not been


where to go and when to be there for this drug deal he drove he was the lead car that went there saw the mark made one separately he drove to the exact spot in the field they took up the surveillance position across the street he's armed with a loaded gun and that was


that far and was involved in an offense as far as like being a ban semiautomatic assault weapon there were not any specific findings as to that effect there was a jury finding that the that mr mcdowell did possess all three of the


trial court at the pretrial hearing the hearsay would not have been admissible and specifically if comes to the issue of the credibility of the initial hearsay witness patti sue cally and the potential impact of


characters and all the pens whether three year old charles put up to something by the mother or not i would think you'd be able to put in some kind of a defense you wouldn't just


direct jurisdiction to be able to hear the order from the bankruptcy court directly for the reasons we discussed earlier but even even more importantly the notion of equitable tolling was addressed down below we didn't weren't given an opportunity to


you have if you look at the record is you have a defendant who has some what i consider very legitimate concerns those legitimate concerns are is why is i've been through this once before in effect and this is


because the last deed in the chain of title was the one that said hugh grant t is the snow family trust the lender understandably said i don't know that this makes sense to let's straighten this out let's make sure that the borrower


if the district court has if it's a specific number and i've agreed to a specific number then the question is whether or not it's agreed that that number is one of a five agreed to raise now the district court is going to be exercising


saying well they should have given him treatment let's say i'm the judge that looks at it differently and says you're forty seven years old you've had a lot of brushes with the law you can't get better unless you want to get better you've certainly had a lot of time to wake up you're not you know you're not


vacuum for e p a or the united states government that would be a big leap to assume that congress intended that when in fact there's no evidence to suggest that you know congress intended to seat the field of private individuals


and i don't have in front of me but i think it referred to he'll have no more than two or three behavioral instances per day or per week under the behavior management plan that the district implemented in the manner that they did eventually exceeded that goal he


physical locations or words i'm placed in the ninth circuit court room but that is not my educational placement placement is defined under the i d e a as the basically the intensity of specially designed instruction and services that have


you i will stop now thank you jim


prove a constructive possession to date as this was the government had to prove that he could exercise control and dominion over those in order to do so that it was fair for the jury to


the check in the closet feel around there if that all happened within a minute does that change anything i think the key word in mr hackneys presentation was the word maybe he said maybe there was somebody else there the police had no


backpack a picture of the robber in the bank bank surveillance photos her statement the circumstances and found actually in this context that the threat of death increase was not warranted the court then refused to do


question p c l believe him a key people project manager on large projects that's the way it stood when he started i v s during i d s he gets the positive profiler right smack in the middle of it that is uniformly positive frankly


and he found that that statement occurred when mr carleton swore under oath that it did not and mr congressman pointed to the fact of the profiler which was done at the same time given the four on the surprises question so there was a deeply


eighty dash one because we are perceived on the original district court record i believe it's also included in the supplemental excerpts of record by


that the sentencing hearing in the exact same manner as many many many sentencing hearings prior to the court seminal decision in united states versus booker looking at the sentencing transcripts we


court has taken into account all of the relevant factors and that comes from the other recent case of the just our way to that and so i think that it's tempting to look at that statement and try to extrapolate from


dependent sentences for sentencing in consideration of that turning again to the confrontation issue i think there's a very important reason in this record why despite the claims of a not hearsay purpose


false and it shows a planned alibi or in stewart it's false and it shows the defendants were carefully orchestrating and planning to gather what they were going to say and what they were going to say to create the obstruction that's the factor that's missing in


all these people right that's actually ok can you help me then with regard to the evidence that ties garcia to the conspiracy in the early part i'm going to basically discount for five and six


the same amount of quantity that first trip but in fact i think it would have been removed for the defense to contest well you know what we don't know how much was there so frankly that should be zero and say there was a conspiracy but we don't know how much that would have been pretty unreasonable so in terms of i


also then include the corollary that you have the right to continue working in the union a unionized fire after and basically be a free loader get all the benefits of the pay


anybody when you're using evidence that's just that is that general when when what our case law says is you just got to confront him and say you know how do you explain this that dutch think that only three in the whole state were


the record just for the immigration let's settle that issue first before we go through i'm in the field i see well the record that was before the immigration judge our position has always been that current


you know simply possesses paraphernalia doesn't get the focus treatment that somebody who may have possessed a large amount of heroin would that was sort of a disparate treatment but that same thing here when you think about it according to the government's argument you have to make sure you get


to agree with you and remand this case back to the v a is there is there anything that you would tend to do to supplement the record on can country conditions in georgia today yes your honor we would as i mentioned before there have been major events in


peacefully for about eight years in georgia no your honor he actually he came to the united states the threats against him they occurred after he came to the united states so his claim from


was part of the pattern miscue part had never been able to make the financial decisions in the family seems might have been more financially astute and you know that's difficult to know


that's the that's the question is whether the record compels that conclusion i understand your honour's concern it is that it's a relatively brief decision for some of these immigration case that she could have gone on and discussed perhaps in more


established that the gunman did this that this was a narcotic skank that had committed the crime when she when they abducted her and committed the brutalization on her specifically they told her they threatened her that no


mr benjamin states two grounds first he claims membership in a particular social group that is muslims married to roman catholics in indonesia and second he


remedy available and regarding the question of whether or not it's the factions that situation or a legal matter that is looked at in regard to the period of time that the


now under the expedited removal order statute alienness not allowed to return for five years which sounds like congress contemplated a and break may continue as physical presence of five years can you address that aspect well your


former inconsistent sees which then the government was giving her a chance to escape explaining where she went even to a different thing that was totally unexplainable so that no correlation with what


brief comment here on page thirteen of the two thousand five motion reopen that can be found in a our page eighteen quoting from the last paragraph since the two thousand to the future of fiji has been uncertain etc


removal finally your honour's the immigration judge also applied the incorrect legal standard and violated the petitioners due process rights in compelling him to go forward with almost two hours worth of testimony while he


and then she goes down on the following page and again on page one seventy eight she says the government was asking you an english question and you proceeded to respond and talk about your second arrest and then you said which one let me remind you to be responsive and provide


record to reflect that this responding as being under sponsored he wasn't he was perfectly consistent and he was responsive i think i'll reserve the balance of my time to see what the government


that does not take away his or her legalization status that's a separate decision made exclusively by the legalisation office in conclusion we would submit that the board's decision has to be


the government is either unwilling or unable to control violence requires a showing the government has a radical did it or almost eradicate it the the petitioner would have the obligation


links what the m s m gang members trying one time to recruit mr i get that assaulting him one time knew about his particular religious beliefs and were motivated by guys in contrast to


creating an affirmative right to file basically even though there hasn't been a an application actually received by minus th or else there's nothing before


it's possible to read into the bar the to the that the finding of past persecution but the board explicitly focused on the immigration judges decision that there was a lack of objective evidence regarding the well founded


in any independent written analysis at least in its decision so the record that we look to here is essentially the hearing before the immigration judge and then subsequently the notice of appeal that was filed to the agency for purposes of its review before the


as well as cancellation and all the forms of relief were denied and specifically when the board's


anything that would rise to the level of suspicion and especially because he was claiming that he was fired from work afterwards into your


immigration fraud because the allegation is he does not knows the fact that he had a prior marriage at the time that he obtained his immigrant visa which was based on a second marriage to a citizen our


mean that's really the heart of my question the difference is the evidence for there is so much evidence in the record what happens when the smoke travels to commercial property to


so now we have to add to twenty years he has reset in the united states with his family and the ten years he has to stay out that fact can and should have been considered by the judge and was not the question of whether there is sufficient


no the standard is that the evidence has to compel a conclusion that the immigration judge was wrong in this fact finding you know the words that no reasonable fact finding we could have if


have may i ask about that i'm i am troubled by the i j a is determinations about demeanor saying you know she she wasn't emotional she was kind of stone faced in that sort of things because there's


petitioners have adequately proven that they suffered persecution or incidents of persecution that were specific to them that would include both the male and female patient


seem to be somewhat inconsistent except for the date there was one was a brief detention and release and the other is an arrest drive to jail overnight stay two stories don't match what's


conclusion that his crime was one involving moral turpitude so however many exhaustion of the richer they are again may not have explicitly been presented with that argument in front of them


about and and said in making his determination i understand the court's question the concern but the issue is whether or not the standard of review is whether substantial evidence with support i d s credibility finding right and if the


availability of twelve the really in connection with this criminal trial because they didn't even know that at some future point to call he really would be limited and that aggravated felons who had served five years or more would not be eligible for not sure how


said over and then within five months of this capture is when we went to hearings but the judge at that time said that well you know there's a provisional government they're trying to combat insurgents and i'm going to find


turns out over to the company and the and the company keeps the company no longer a percentage of that is my understanding and other companies do that i would say that that is a critical factor here


in directly to the credit card company so that he wouldn't have to give up six percent of that to friendly and that he wasn't able to do that and again although that is a factor that supports control that the taxi driver drivers


we have i mean we have a board that looked at it gave credibility and rejected the of jay's determination and credibility and there's a look looking at all the evidence of us in the in the various reports you can interpret them different ways and in the


argument that it means somehow the burden


and we're claiming that he was credible and eligible for asylum once we've once we've proven that the government would then assert the bar but because he has because there is an address exception within the material support bar that he


it stands we have jurisdiction we don't have to remain to really find out whether we would have jurisdiction if they ruled under arrest that's correct and what the primary finding was was an adverse credibility determination which this court


demanding that they be shown what was under the blankets before they helped them out right you the problem here is even if we could believe petitioner we just don't know what to believe in the immigration judges in the same position unable to reach the duress question at all because the


it's unfortunate that took the services far howard during no none of the spears or any record ever since that petition or made any attempt to contact the service so the petitioners nine months one school's out services fourteen years


we're going to pass this rule it's one point sixty one and from henceforth all exchanges have to submit have to impose limits submit limit rules and sort of and submit enforcement rules that's nine hundred eighty one


the reason the b i used the word child instead of children is because the b i never considered hardship to both children in this case again the record indicates that the petitioner has two children she testified to


that's what they say and they refused to make any payment and that's the end of that now it's two thousand and thirteen thirty thirty years later fifty thousand and forty forty years later


death despite juror nine's belief that her cousin was strangled by a boyfriend she stated the police didn't gather enough evidence to detain the boyfriend but the prosecutor will leave the journal and might allow this experience with police to factor impartiality and


is that the application of the guidelines in the state of washington not the federal guidelines was unconstitutional for to read not the guidelines themselves but the application because the fifth


facts in favor of the fact that she'd be treated poorly do or divorced status she had lived there in twenty seven years she didn't stay long enough after any of the deportations to experience


sentencing we did not move for downward departure the homeowners he had not provided substantial assistance in the investigation of that point that's what they said that we would have they said that the


to cover claims that may be within the coverage as well as those that are within the coverage at however i was interested in the hypothetical case about the dentist take your adversary gaev and i was


defend in such a way so that every everything gets blamed but the windows what i'm saying is they can control the entire tapes they'll be totally indifferent not only will they blame everything on something other than the


and waiting years until really six or more years later all that was gone so there would be no credible claim that the united states government had participated in the strength of that'll be the closest thing i think that we have and have that evidence in the record on that point your honor


government's whole case they don't like to acknowledge of the government's whole case rested imax corvus ago and his credibility so anytime a witness who has no axe to grind no reason to lie comes up with


no way based soley on the language used in that those conversations that anyone can say that they were talking about richard serrano or shooting up american performance i want to one thing clear though i'm not saying that those conversations are not going to sound


of my client and i want to make just this observation this really is a case between two insurance scotus as to exactly what it is and here's why i think this court should rule with this is a matter


factor of seven percent which is different what the i r s uses to come to a lump sum


and i'm thinking that that is what is distinguishable and would be evidence that he likes to look at those kind of pictures on his computer so he probably has some there one of my misunderstanding well


examples the government official has paid twenty five thousand to name a park after him or someone has now lost in the city twenty five thousand is to vote for redevelopment project the project is advantageous to achieve this


yes from the bowling perspective i think it's useful to look at the other side of the coin in terms of looking at preparedness preparedness to answer the industry which is the critical question under


it's negligence now think that he didn't explain the negligence or prove in my hypothetical or prove that it wasn't negligence doesn't mean that relief can't


defense counsel all defense counsel said was five out of six you know that statistically it's there's a problem i never heard that if i never saw where the defense lawyer says judge i have ject to your giving the reasons or i respectfully request that you demand the


since become come to be known as the stay and they process and the court declined the motion so the issue on appeal seems to me is whether that was probably within the court's discretion to decline his request for a


also it is also i believe would be appropriate to consider the likelihood of his exhausted claim which was the ineffective assistance of counsel because a quick reading of the record will show that he's not been denied a chance to have a meritorious


that decision the final result is a fair and reasonable return to you because rent ordinances variable by city or is there sort of a master ordinance that they're all different there's one hundred


the police they trailed the truck they did not see it involved in marijuana or carrying now marijuana and in fact they found it when they traveled it and was under surveillance for a few days march sixteenth through march eighteenth


so yes if this selection of the alternate jurors were some was somehow foul but none of them were used


didn't that it was reluctant to climb out on a limb well what is going to have to do is climb out of this thing winds of the california supreme court would and if you know the california supreme court's help in predicting that as i


we find that she reached her plea agreement by virtue of these phone calls the sake of discussion that we uphold the district judge on that point then they are relieved of their obligation of recommending the low end of the guideline


facts so that would be a fact finding of which about i believe so your honor reasonable yes your honor if i like the choice by pointing out the counsel that i started talking about the need for an evidentiary hearing i think that issues additionally way because


well yes judge king you did this me everything i wanted and last i did in fact get even more than i was entitle to but now that i realize my client's been convicted i wish i hadn't done this and i'd like to go back and do the whole trial over


true so she brought the attention of the problem so now we realize that the prosecutor is trying to put this guy in jail for life and now we're going to rely on her sank it's no big deal you don't get to see it but you've got to trust me it's no big deal you know because you put it in the hands


is a case involving a civil rights prosecution and you have something that's illegal in the united states who happens to be a member of minority group he happens to be a spanish and the government's charging a an agent with having beaten


i look at the supreme court case law that says the predicate offense to establish pattern of drug violations as one of the elements for c c can include prior


motion at the close of the government's case and she you know you're not being prejudiced to the attic stand in that you can renew the motion well i think that tantamount to her saying i am persuaded at this


circumstances the correct remedy is the law the doctors can do their work but they're not admitted into evidence but why shouldn't the rule be if there is no constitutional violation for the emergency psychiatric


money on the have it on the have it ok so the key word is have it yes just have it equal disease within the meaning of the coverage language of the policy here as interpreted by any california case and if not


question you're on of the first party as some witnesses did say that he said he was calling from washington d c the second part of that is one there was no evidence he didn't call from washington d c but i believe that's


i don't think there was an obligation here for for counsel to have


constructive term action so i think brown certainly is involved allegedly in the creation of the atmosphere i thought you were saying that he didn't make the decision to put her arm leash with her that i feel i don't know ok someone up in


it is not the only remedy it may not why can it be an abuse of discretion in a case like this where the offer was mistaken while the said that is the only remedy and that there was necessarily an abuse of discretion you're telling us that the judge marshall had no options


course the offer was based on the understanding the law at the time but that even based on those findings there is no showing that the offer would not have been made that it would not have been charged that this is what he thought would not have been charged as a one strike


the key issues by virtue of the discovery abuse against the abuser and another court says although i can determine what happened here even if i didn't tell him what happened here


jurisdiction period unless the former debtor can demonstrate that the outcome of the litigation will have some effect on her a state that's the in re fights case which we cite in our briefs we wrote in our briefs that vicki has not


an implication of the prosecution there are if you're talking to somebody that you can you can prosecute for perjury and instead of prosecuting them they get the idea that if they cooperate with you they don't get prosecuted they get immunity again


responsible person there's individuals in some companies that have the titles and they don't have the authority there's other companies where they don't have any titles yet they do have authority so the law on the circuit as well as one other circuits is because trying to get


therefore we were going to do the inventory search and there's certainly no case law as counsel indicates saying that you have to wait and take the possible guns or drugs or whatever else is in that car and so went to the impound lot before you can do the


just one to two whether he felt the drugs or not that's not the issue it's he's right out there saying yes i did i did steal the drugs it's going to whether the jury perceives it as a truthful person and other than the issue of whether it's you know i kept calling him the only other


attention to him and make a loan regardless and that's why it's not material but my thought was well maybe they don't pay much attention to him or check them out because they're figuring on the legal sanctions


exactly what i really like what i reviewed from the trial even though i was there for the whole whole trial but what i do know is everything that i'm relying on for this sentenced and it's relevant conduct determination is in


i don't believe but i can back could i direct that's not in the record what is in the record is that she her understanding is that that was not appropriate for her to have to fight that fire by herself and


was not proper because a jury could find that mr griffin had objected today in order to prevent d n a from expressing expressing views hostile to griffon if that was the panel decision then why does the district court then


to who would be responsible for the payment of any damages that might be assessed as nothing in the evidence or certainly nothing in the jury instructions that fact it's simply right here's a question presented on a jury instruction eleven do you find that he was that the


exercising viewpoint discrimination against political parties we serve the other what it calls nonpartisan organizations in other words the v a is making a distinction between a political organizations like the league of women's voters and political


late thirty's early forty's at the time this wasn't a brand new hire and it was offensive to him in its detail all throughout that it happened practically from the day he started at least up until he reported it to work well so


you were to receive a date today and yes you were to receive a date that would probably be one of the things that we would consider now your honour's that is exactly backwards what that means in terms of looking at the record to make the


but the issue is you know that we never get to the violation of the act because there were no damages allowed and i would like to reserve my one minute and forty four seconds if i might


would have this court conclude that even though you can obtain nominal damages in virtually every other type of claim you can under the a even though this court has specifically concluded


categorically excludes this evidence this isn't a discretionary test there's no balancing as soon as a jury hears in the middle of this interview tape that he refused to submit to a polygraph examination the police referred to clearly in the tape


which is consistent with your past life and work furthermore he did say that she had to shift shift positions which is also consistent with her past relevant work furthermore but


innocuous when you have something like an airplane crash or a fire or an explosion at a facility like this it would be less detrimental than the catastrophic release an aria that that they quantified because the heat effect and the


says addresses the fire explosion or airplane crashes scenario so this is not a case at all like mothers for peace mothers for peace was a situation where the agency said nice but doesn't involve terrorism that's not what the agency did here the court was


using congressional districts which i think is what the judge was was getting at is that there's three congressional districts in the state of nevada two of those are in clark county actually all three are part of clark county but two are in clark county


which is what would have to happen if this were dismissed on moving this grounds then the state will be able to enforce the thirteen county rule that made it very plain that they intend to and desire to to enforce the rule they think it's a good rule


wanted it to be that you would stay out of virginia altogether or honest wouldn't go for it and what we settled on was a non solicitation provision involving the customers in virginia so there was no testimony your honor to answer your question that they couldn't go


recommendations and i was i believe it was briefed in the california court of appeal and that's the case i find most similar i think is a lily versus virginia


congress imposed the different requirements in the statutes there are there is in section sixteen ninety two g b a procedure for disputing in writing and what a debt collector must do if a dispute is received in writing but the remainder


j records would have been defended in the first policy until the first policy exhausted if the first policy was already exhausted there'd be no coverage and that's because of the aggregating language of the policy in the requirement for satisfaction of s i ours the issue is not


briefly your honour's i think in fact you have highlighted the absurdity of their interpretation under their interpretation in fact j records which is first played in the second policy period somehow relates to a systematic


typically happens in my experience is they say well we're almost there we're pretty close we think we can nail down a few terms but that's not what happened in this case well our sides isn't convinced that the that happened although


present and i would just announce it was a little premature doesn't that that's why this court defers to the findings of fact from the district judge that as he probably did in this case holder never to ensure hearing puts everybody on the witness stand the


was the argument that chevron made consistently chevron chose to make mr pease character a big part of this case i did not do that we did not do that they attacked mr peake from the beginning to the end they claimed that he was not injured


time period but really that's that's a sufficient but not a necessary ground for this court to find in the government's favor because in a broader sense even if that conduct had terminated well


overturned therefore i would ask this panel to affirm the district court of firming the judgment of the bankruptcy court thank you thank you mr


has created the structure that could lead to if they want to change it yes that's congress's responsibility not theirs quirks to read and the limitation that congress chose not to put there so the only we're the only limitations on the attorney


again after you as we've completed because of these the difficulty is that people confuse a record and exhibit and to the extent these were exhibits to the court then they might be part of the record but


judicata he never gave an opinion of any detail other than that your first question was had the supreme court city of tucson vs clear channel case


no delay in getting the case going or even prosecuting the case so the the judge then measured the two year period from the time of which you filed suit which was april of two thousand and two which was one year after the cause of action arose


understand is different than them market value of such of eleven million dollars but mr strong did not refute that the bankruptcy would have happened and that's the evidence that nowhere is refuted in the record the trial court has no attention to by the way all these things that were just


can't take it anymore you've got to make her stop the postal service management was well aware of mr lopez this mental state mrs ms lopez's propensity for violence and that she had been continually


on this case and they did at the iau investigation began in november two thousand and two while this was going on her form ramona lopez's former boyfriend michael least came forward to the local human relations manager and


of the prosecutor's argument was that nothing bad nothing good i mean he didn't really save or or or sank this issue language which contradicts in this case the language which contradicts


spoke of procedural bars being conditions to obtaining relief as opposed to conditions to filing a petition so is there any theory at all under which there was


indicates that the understood rule of practice in the state of california was that the two would be filed in conjunction with one another as pope indicated when the facts were known when they were outside the record and when the issue was


correcting the lao translator because everything in that trial was translated in english for the benefit of the jury and the judge we still believe that one primary focal


we don't know whether those were three or four on important times are important lines but that that's all the translator does the rest of the time translators sitting there waiting if there is a problem with understanding what's going on following


the court's permission three minutes for a bottle the district court issued an order in october two thousand and four that essentially held that the simple fact that there were indians on both sides of the dispute rendered the


line the broker sans three documents as part of a renewal offer an offer of renewal in a letter a price quote with a list of coverages that repeated the existing coverages and third a premium bill


facts he knew his insurance was expiring in two days he knew it said or interpret it to say send me a check or you're not covered all of those go to the fact that mr schmidt knew that the first policy was in fact expiring so then we turned to


court has before it what it needs to make that decision at this point in time the bottom line is that with the consent decree before the f c c where he considered nine hundred complaints some want to the


plaintiff's counsel has of judge conman's argument judge can and did have some state fraud act claims and at the end of his opinion he indicated if the state fraud act claim is really just a breach of contract claim by another name it


during the whole time and we thought based on that law it was extremely simple and straightforward what i was pointing out in terms of the distinction of the decision by the district judge but i have great respect for there was on a lot of


asking the district court to find some other attorney ineffective which is the object of very serious charge based on an affidavit that is putting the district court in a very difficult situation to make a very serious determination without any


while i was a trial counsel in this case your honor but i'm very familiar with this case and i'm very familiar with the record in this case and i believe what the record says is he was very truthful about his statements about not knowing anything about that terminations


not the anders the thing that concerns me is that if he had under under floors ortega the defendant had no access to an appeal at all the


is where there's sufficient alumina to make spin out to make spin and that isn't that a functional definition rather than a structural one yes i mean i mean it is


and similar merchandise determination by comers but petitioners did provide an explanation that is relevant again initially in the proposed there was an express exclusion then petitioners came back and said in a


where on certain elements are constructed one of which is the clean internal functional circuit the use of the word where on there indicates that the internal functional circuit is on the integrated circuit substrate


it's the only area that allows you to have both functional circuits a and c operating on separate power islands as described in the specification adopting the court's construction simply reads out that embodied which is


communicates back and the paradigm at that time was one computer one computer controller and one robot and the inventors in this case the wang inventors had the idea


brings in the callback mechanism and she's found in roach and she's you know it's a pretty simple motivation but that's all that's needed it's i have to let them know that the robots become available and then using roche together i believe would be obvious to a person ordinary skill in the


in terms of a surrounding aspect of it there really isn't any difference and and which is what i understand the board to itself of completed but am i wrong what am i wrong about so what


the when the board would have terms doing that then it's true that the statute that gives the board jurisdiction is first to jurisdiction that is given by statute or regulation so you know that's why o


because i'm not aware of a reason why they wouldn't have that ability on you know in arguing that the board has jurisdiction mr skull has relied on


that their intention was certainly to terminate him before he accrued any right running but if he automatically had crewed rights if he completed the internship notwithstanding their intention that he not


head we've been clear headed we've been over there is the question before your application for subsidies was denying by the government so you say now in hindsight the fact that the new government has determined not to give us subsidies means there was no rationale to


because it unfortunately undeniably what it was close is it's very clear it's a short abstract has the relevant information in it if the person in your position has just published


cited and attached to its opposition work was signed by the department of interior they also claimed that the appellant never served the agency representative with a copy of his statement concerning jurisdiction which somehow factored


criteria that you're supposed to consider transfer price market price and cost of production and i guess you can get away with not considering one of just not be able and everybody agrees that not available but doesn't what you're using now


thousand and seven she found that because she found the pressure real estate applied to that kind of vexatious activity the filing in the covenant not to sue i don't think you can say that the filing of cases of this kind is


in that case you don't apply the simple but for causation test you look at a substantial factor test because it leads to one just results in the supreme court was not considering that a scenario in oxford was faced with just it didn't deal with parallel proceedings at all


i'm not sure that it's ultimately necessary to decide this to decide this case because as chavez pointed out there is this predecessor statute section forty two zero two five which said that


opportunity and this is reflected in our briefs positively on a big use we said this is not a government for germany we don't want to look like a government for germany it's a federal reserve banks who are not to go meant for jury something for something that they are doing


to claim i'm sorry line fourteen it says the amount of each kind of memory available is constrained by the amount of space on the integrated circuit card used for each type of memory column this is


all that when the specification is talking about a process that a portion of the memory may be in the process or that what they're really talking about there is the microcontroller it's you know it's common parlance that a c p u is the central processing unit that


programmable device that is referred to in the specification at all is a microcontroller there's nothing else in the specification that is programmed as part of this invention other than the microcontroller


maybe wrongly maybe maybe not but they believe that the time mr c and dr and the very people that he is referring to believe oh good news about the gat we've got the right one for about this begad it talks about selectable markers the fact is and this is under stupid to use a selectable


fact if you were to use it to change the definition of ratio in order to import any consistency between those two claims you create in consistency across many many other claims because they include a lower boundary on a range


the e mail set forth in the charge was not attached to the charges so we assume that the agency is right when they say that it's been one thirty first e mail i stand corrected that was introduced as an exhibit zero


really protecting in the manufacture of malory and testified that they don't even have nope in the philippines they have to import the powder in order to make the the product that's being sold to the united states that should


what not necessarily new would suppose that instead of using nuts and bolts what you did was to a poxy the two pieces together so that what you ended up with was starting with two hemisphere occult portions you ended


circumstances that can't recurrent a new contract i would go farther than that i would say that the performance can't be considered as a matter of law because the order


you back to the diagnostic and statistical manual the problem here is that the board and the court below got involved in medical issues and those medical issues should have been


good that's that's the problem here that a surface can be two dimensional but a surface in and of itself is not structure a membrane is structure in that it's got thickness of


us to the place where this was discussed and you say you pressed not d c circuit law but federal circuit i believe in association


expectation with respect to dates were more in line with her expectation of how talented a geisha is went before her court and that's how i had suggested a less reasonable approach in fact our approach would have had


to be the activity that is covered by four c that would have to be willful because it this statute plainly says the filing of an end itself while an act of infringement only allows you to collect damages if there is marketplace commercial activity of


consummated i'm sure the witnesses were not willing to give legal conclusions and that may that may give rise to some of the seeming dancing but the facts of the negotiation of those terms the entering


really a work for their disadvantage and borrowed cards are the the judge of the judge as a bar the judge in considering some of their evidence that may be a problem but that that's not what happened in the court below


included that he could not find any reference to a user interface or a custom interface located on the customer's laptop at any time before june of two thousand now power


expires there's a future of your exam excusable neglect for the next thirty days then the lower court can grant an extension of the appeal so i file a motion to extend the period


at the discretion of the judge you're supposed to somehow divine what it's going to be and make a deposit need vance i'm confused well


is a reimbursement of an overpayment it is it is the fact that we are pain that we've already paid in whatever year we get management we've already paid administrative costs we were already already out of pocket


it it might not you know facially you may struggle with why this particular context should have been extended but that there ever been substantial finding is that public interest is served by maintaining the timber in industry infrastructure we do believe


that an allocation a no is an allegation is good enough to meet the standard for obtaining a medical exam the court also said in waters that competent evidence is perhaps too high a standard but


construction is the court set forth said that the leading light is to direct more light in a downward direction to a reading area than in an outward or upward


unquote the experts said that is a three hundred sixty degree range of horizontal angles but i think blob was more understandable to the jury and to the judge in this case oriented means according to


each request except for the one that was done in the middle of trial there was a request in september which they then updated through september thirtieth there was a later request for all of the customer


motivated interest in their refund cases without arguing that the transactions weren't shams they cannot argue an individual refund case that the trend partnership transactions were not share and the issue is the nature


to the user's application without processing it's an unmodified it's a regular text or paging message that has not been modified according to the teaching the patent and step to figure one sort of indicates that you exclude that it's not part of the invention we don't want to


based on the specific c d s and automatically seven point one has a specific to us as an element but that's not the case the basis of that argument does not apply simply when a some point when it does not give out different punishments based on the specific city it doesn't even list a


small line but an ounce under federal laws misdemeanor and an ounce under new jersey law is filming and they just don't line up if you land at that argument we're comparing the minimal amount you


element first reasoning is that because seven point one requires the elements of the general provision under five plus the location element and five itself requires a controlled


liquidated and that was clearly false because they knew that her claim was the subject of a jury trial it had been affirmed by the connecticut appellate court connecticut and that the argument in the connecticut supremes court on that


brief cite to both coke has addressed neither one of those opinions in the matrix decision which was a securities case where the question was whether investors would consider


statement with this particular piece of the puzzle tend to increase the chances of criminal exposure and here there are statements about planning the robbery going to the robbery knowing that there would be guns those statements would all very clearly be against duncan's


went to joe i'm sorry this is sam i want to chose house a reasonable person in the declarant shoes being linked to conspiracy i would take it a step further in adding to that example sam


by my own admission it is sure ange that miss duncan indicated that she was hypnotized however she never deviated from the fact that she observed hommel holding the gun pointing in the


he notes that on december twenty first he received a call from a d a bergman that said state court guilty plea went through and then on that date they brought him they made the they apply for the writ to


your i was going to start your honors i was going to start with the st point of my brief which is the rule sixteen violation as we allege however that it was an interesting segue from the last case where there was such overwhelming evidence of the defendant's


schizophrenia untreated and so what was the st thing that he isn't and and i'm just echoing my colleague that that wasn't raised before the district court and he has it by that it was a misunderstanding that hearing took place months after the titian was


our client had proposed a release supervision that was not imposed by the sentencing judge and the undisputed response to that that complaint was to take it up with the courts and i think a logical extension of instant and hassle and how courts have been analyzing the


case there should absolutely under no circumstances ever be a contractual choice of law as we've cited in our papers in the cases that have come down after the ministers and missionaries


vast majority of the underlying facts that gave rise to the court's preliminary injunction motion and at high level there's no dispute that these were for very senior executives of capstone their former senior pinnacles of employees who engaged in the campaign


be allowed i think you had heard enough and had already come to a conclusion in his mind but obviously he never formalized that because you didn't have the opportunity but the exclusion of that evidence including the exclusion of


consistent with precedent of this court and the supreme court but if there's a case if i'm sorry johnson if there is a case in which such discretion is properly exercised i'll suggest to you this is it but but how do we


and out of sight from the officer but in any event the circumstances preceding their approach gave them more than enough reason to simply approach the parked or standing vehicle where it was and


which he in response to leading questions does say that he did not make that statement and then responded no to do you understand what i'm asking you i would also posit that his response not knowing his birthday things like that or are not


canty taken as a whole the officers personal observations the demeanor of the parties the physical appearance of the victim all of these things together easily meet the preponderance standard


one point one of the federal right you know procedure right my colleague said that it's doesn't make sense to have a lot to say that law enforcement can't testify as to what they've observed and of course that's correct that's not our


clearly not a restoration of her rights but they said they had to under the agreement that they had that they were obligated to do so and i know you're going to tell me about mr people's testimony but it doesn't say what you think it says well i respectfully submit that there is


there is evidence of malice or ill well there isn't in this case the performance evaluation and question is just a series of checkmarks


but he sent a fed ex to the austrian defendant and that has been briefed by their attorney that it's the fact of people leaving what's your


contemporaneous i think has to go back at least a couple of years you can't get it a report which shows years worth of behavior on the day that you're filing but yes i think that i think your honour's correct that it that


of his being tortured is not based on the number of people who were but the percentage of those so i think it is a powerful document and i think it was diminished count


it's important generally speaking that the court this court not allow the kind of shoddy behavior that obviously happened in


dickens and then missed and then the schneider will come next thank you judge judge mr dictions takes the position that the plain error rule applies to both issues that are raised by


conspiracy involved at least twenty grams of crack cocaine with respect to the discussion about challenging the felony conviction relied upon to enhanced cruise's sentence


thirty years ago or something but mr reading i'm sure will point that out but other than that nothing zero nada i want to point out before my time runs out the trial court did something i believe is remarkable and respectfully i take


defendant in that case in the trademark infringement case had sold bags counterfeit bags involving manufacturers that were not part of the cause of action the court nonetheless found that that was still part of the general plan that demonstrated that the defendant


criminal warrant which is generally territory restricted and the answer in that case was that it ought to be treated like a warrant and therefore did not reach abroad the assumption among everyone as far as i read the cases is that if it were treated as a civil subpoena it would reach abroad


when it says this is the fee amount is now a question that they've put into into into play as i said we can be ridiculous you've got to transport a passenger from new york


just that and it is our contention that if a shareholder were to read the one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight release which is the current release that the shelter would find no sets no such language or exception


the fact the policy exists if anything to the way simply shows that the policy provides for exemptions and exceptions sometimes are made so so the record is clear i submit that there is no inconsistency between lee has made the argument


the government from setting in a status procedures that prevent us citizens from applying for this property right and the fact that you know they say listen there's an international office that's too full st of all the international offices in italy and they can no more get the


unique as alleged in the complaint the act what are you referring to read on rooms yes your honor and that is important in this case the actual complaint itself is crystal clear in paragraph


the nd leading cause of lung cancer is in fact more likely call lung cancer than environmental tobacco smoke the rate a levels in this building were the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to two and a half


medium by judge order to and in this case she determined that everything before helling is those defendants that conduct there is qualified immunity the only issue is the testing in their mediation protocols that's the scope of the right here at the end of the day


sufficient to convict mr goodman beyond a reasonable doubt on the conspiracy count to the contrary the evidence proved that for over a year call your good men trafficked in large wholesale quantities of cocaine which he provided


fallacy she would not have been able to adjust status but for the filing and approval of that initial visa petition and that's a very important priority date is transferred correct your honor that's correct and your argument


my brief shows all over the place that mr war is in on these e mails he's copied on these emails and nowhere does he say what do you negotiating with this guy for we ended this plan for the two percent they're saying we think it's unfair it's its service


without filing complaints with respect to the hostile work environment and we haven't talked about it very much but the gender based is time barred and there's no evidence that anything happened that happened to her within the three hundred


illegal sentence to stand but if the price of challenging that is that he can face an additional year of jail time in order to correct the supervised release sentence it just doesn't seem like that's something excuse more games


been in abusive relationships but her relationship as a concern the offense had nothing at all to do with the offense conduct she invented the scheme she created the scheme she recruited him for the scary saying she should have had a heavier


duties that these employees perform the nd pertaining to the minimum educational requirements required for this if for this position beginning with the duties the essence of this job is to take medical


what to the extent that that made a difference one of the one piece of the record that's not referred to in our brief and finding mr hines lee guilty judge craney said


know all fashion search by people why is why should why isn't probable cause and now for any kind of search well judge i think when title three was created congress


well i think it's the privacy interest in the individual judge i think it's that we're revealing work where the government is capturing an individual spots yes the earliest when they go in and search a person's house and


trial about a variety of performance issues related to the need a miller there was ample evidence presented at trial about the alleged discussions or about both sides explanation of the discussions which occurred on september fifteenth


of fortunately the client got his i won thirty approved and he didn't tell me and that's why i couldn't invites the court or the board about that but i just want


and shop relatedness quote the plaintiff wins simply by showing disparate impact that was the posture at the beginning of the trial here the burden of proof was on the city to prove that there is a connection


necessary for the job a physical ability tests are now common for jobs that have clearly physical components to them as the paramedic job does


cut off selected nine thirty five which was nine thirty five ninety two percent of those who perform above that score would perform satisfactorily while nonny while eighty while under one thirty five eighty five percent would form


bunk permit knows about a serious medical condition true i'm trying to figure out how one puts these things together greg there's more here than just the lower bunk order there's the fact that miller told the officers that he had a brain tumor and that the lower back order was entered


kidney and you might have seen in the records there was a declaration from my client where he says at one point he asked dr santos for a nother ultrasound and doctor said to screen no at him and before before you know


murder cross reference found in united states sensing guidelines to the one point one again mr pertain identifies that he was he'd provided mr mitchell the relevant guidelines which would be to the one point one what


pertain advised mitchell that the government was the least willing to discuss a plea negotiations centered around twenty years and in exchange for some cooperation mitchell rejected that and even to this day he's


access or somebody else needs a sign or so that they can follow what's going on in the court room i don't see why the federal court is the right place to go to solve this problem my client needs access on a daily


think in other it addition to that is the fact that at the police hearing when asked whether or not he was forced to enter the plea he answered no and and obviously those are concerning but


up before trial and there was no objection there was no for three objection at all it came in clean with no objection at all you know i mean you can't count on that but anyway but let me ask you about agent brash because we've had a number of of these


cites noted the evidence was considered so the only question that's left is how the evidence was considered and i think it's quite clear that that's a factual question and it just sort of if you follow it through logically suppose you accepted petitioners argument and we made it saying that there weren't any


customer it's part of the loan was about three times larger than the house's part of the loan thus it was both necessary and proper for sensible to pledge customers securities as were not


hand to redeem security early redemption requests as i thought it was supposed to i guess i don't understand why that would be a problem i'm sorry to could say one more time if the company the company was


a link in a causal chain perhaps and so i think we relied on highball and hoffman in that case which is you produce you just in your brief that the probation officer should simply be relegated to check in the n c i c on everybody that they


were because of the discriminatory motive in fact the record shows no evidence of any questions of statements by the government that evidence any discriminatory motive and there is no evidence of any pattern of strikes against a particular group of


i wouldn't punched him because he was just sitting there apologizing i don't think that's the right thing to do but you know stuff like that so so they answered in a very factual way they weren't saying that this isn't reasonable in some ten thousand


i think that would be product design and whether or not a manufacturer of that very garish luggage crate argued that there was a function lack of functionality and that they garish design wasn't necessary i don't know that would


factors under the application note and that specifically in pages seven through eight are getting a common scheme or plan or are you looking at same course of conduct


between distribution and just sharing the dead men what with the dead man ross ask well them to contact his dealer weldon did so that's not into spear the


totally in opposite first of all it dealt with a double jeopardy challenge like can take you can't charge somebody twice with a continuous possession but notably in that case the two prosecutions were within the instant offense time they were in this corner of time they both happened


it requires a much more culpable conduct on the part of the public official before the court finds liability the


assist the jury in their task what is their task their only task is to determine whether reasonable force was used now using a wrist lock all bar you are in that situation i submit to you is an illegal act in wrestling


your honor officer jones who was his partner was the one who killed him have come down to the question of what what is to be rebuttal right right i mean if you thought there was something to rebut he had the obligation to raise that to bring it to the court's


close i'm going to write you a ticket do you think at that point the car if there were a driver you think the driver could just excel or eight away and say no you're not and i'm waiting all right that means


signing the gun was noticed i don't agree that that like you have the right to investigate it but then that's a geisha is just observation it doesn't need to be the seizure at that point because at this point all you have suspicion but you don't have a reasonable


that citing statistics from one thousand nine hundred four but it illustrates something that i think at least i don't often consider when officers pulling up they are facing a good and inherently dangerous situation they can't see people's hands and that's why the supreme


a one year statute of limitations he filed a state hey b s but titian he also made his attempt to file a stay of his federal habeas petition but failed to submit a petition


on involved with the sexual assault or any sexual testimony and then that that witness could have been that sign could've been taken down and that witness is perfectly available the concern that day was there were


sentencing range was fourteen years to seventeen years and the court selected the bottom range but it is would be within the district discretion to offer or force the government to offer the same plea agreement here of course we don't know what that plea agreement even said because the government hasn't produced it so that would


don't know how how was cross examination going to go for the government's witnesses six months prior to trial there was only one witness a flipper fight if you will that was in a position to dennis apply the defendant's voice and the


on fifty four b certificate or fix for the judgments in these cases we we'd be doing piecemeal appeals all the time and i might add that when we have these different defendants it's a rare case when the facts don't vary a bit from descended to descent


into a credibility it depends on all of the facts and circumstances does petitioner challenge any of the state courts factual findings we have put we are not relying on the disputed facts we can put the disputed


see is a scared youth in voluntarily confessing and that's not what the courts to evaluate this list record let me tell you what concerns me most about this record if i understand this correctly the key admission


consistent with this verdict in favor of these two individual officers in that the jury apparently determined that the chicago police department as a whole made errors but the jury wasn't asked to consider the context of the church the chicago police


they were simply fillers in a line of line ups oftentimes rely on citizens and in past days they exclusively write in citizens but citizens have become more reluctant to help one hundred rushing through former prosecutors were firmly for men who were good and good so you


this case committed any abuse of process with the exception of two items number one of a kind of jumping forward but the first item as because of


neglected to say what the circumstances were in accordance with that response when by the way when mr davis wrote his initial brief it wasn't clear what sanctions he was talking about


gave that information to leland stevens he already had the customer's consent to have that information just because he became nonaffiliated person under regular speed that doesn't mean that there he didn't


full sides and in this relationship you can't swear in a sworn financial statement that the properties were some point five million dollars and turn around and sell it for millions dollars less soon thereafter or they had a duty of good


shows that lee didn't step didn't meet his burden to prove prejudice the wisconsin court of appeals specifically made that point it said lee gives us no reason to believe that harms wouldn't have seemed furniture in the basement if it was l shaped or if there


thousand eight hundred treatment those charges were approved by workers compensation claims administrator by the name of tristar risk management and compass is a payment agent for tristar tristar is the claims administrator for the


in the alternative if this court does decide that there's not enough i'd at least ask the state mention this and and it's free and i would agree with the safety side but i would ask that if it this court decide that there's not enough and i put that against the defendant terms of losing on this argument but


event deciding factor is whether time counsel stood ready willing and able to make an unconditional entry of the parents defense and here the court found that that was not the case and as


court did properly rule in this instance i'm providing another case for the court to to see that the circuit court was right and


court is what i'm saying about where that draws the line on that scope namely that the school ended when state showed no dissatisfaction with the response to questions as to identity and what he's doing there then the questions about the drugs


we're dealing with an executed contract a prior person was actually working for her employer and as far as what the issue was before this court i think it's a very simple one is whether there is evidence in the records


i do agree that each of these facts taken individually might not be a whole lot we have so many individual facts that once they pile up i think that become pretty relevant first over the days and weeks prior to this encounter


again that this is a truss construction case the other side doesn't want it to be that we think the language isn't as we think it is a truss construction case i begin my argument by telling you heard ted clearly is to benefit jerry


time to go into that issue i think also that the abuse of discretion standard is a very high standard in this case the trial court was familiar with all of the facts and circumstances of this case there's no gross injustice there's no there's no


the better chance you have of surviving the surgery and the better outcome your way out and those are in the instructions they don't have to check their life experience at the door dr alerts parappa testified he was stable on the th and he had a


the one year statute of limitations does apply because even if this is a continuing situation if the ill effects continue but the statute runs from the date that the lease was agreed upon did he ask for two


court and so far as that is balanced against the harm alleged by the plaintiffs and is also relevant with respect to justice rights question when she asked which executive order is properly before this


is the is the invasion of the courts powers to control busy cases that come before it with respect to the invasion of the legislative powers in fiction action is a summary proceeding and the


effect one of the things that the appellant says is is only fair and just to do history ingersoll's intent and that's why we have the of the girl scout but mr ingersoll intent was in the gift over a clause that it go to the park district


did we keep talking about this dicta on page five hundred and sixteen this isn't mandatory language the correct classic definition of deck to is a by the way a comment that originates with that judge and it's used to illustrate his


argument which does not fly and our legislative history we painfully reconstructed this this history this came about because they wanted the attorney general to enforce the un more


why we have this fee shifting because the situation here and there is a rational basis to reach that conclusion generally yes in this


also with respect to the argument raised it during opposing counsel's initial presentation it seemed that of one of them on the sanctions was arguing a tranny much too because false in


the action given gives rise to the litigation did not occur in the chosen forum this is some sort of convenience is no longer reasonable instead it's reasonable to conclude that plaintiff engaged in forum shopping to suit her individual interests a strategy contrary to


i don't believe so i don't believe so i do i mean we had allegations in our motion and that was that was that was filed in february two thousand those allegations established that mr powell


pura eighteen and even if we look at the nih ashokan and say indicate the over exposure to people because of the dust from the the chemical even even in that document where they had the


to make that leap you know it might be a problems medical doctor in his field isn't this what we live on our medical experts to to do for us to explain what the


which are listed as just her already pointed out it will read number four and notice that in those explosions or criminal sexual assault and then if you go back to five three two which


mr carter happened to have one of those and under those circumstances to then say what we're going to allow to plead guilty and receive what is in fair sentence of probation is not what the legislature could have and then they


to that yes your honor they were and so mr guthrie not come forward this court five convictions for sexual exploitation of a child one conviction for public decency and most recently one conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse by his


rd amended complaint so i will look at that and i appreciate your answer and your honor if i may not but you've explained your reasoning for it i would hate that i'm simply misremembering and i can't say for


the last five years of litigation so we believe her arguments were made and if you look at the seven circuit briefing by plaintiffs i believe you will see that she made that


think the parties have been briefing the complaint that eventually was dismissed with leave the replevy but the grob aminah the amended complaint is the same as the original one that is we believe there was a breach pretty sure a beauty in the contract there was tortious interference with contract


condition or if you look at the notes from dr pinsky or not i could understand your argument if your argument was that in some point in time she was not capable to perform as a police officer


into the air to catch a football and waited way ended and fell over the retaining wall and landed on my client and causing her to sustain injuries suit was filed on behalf of my client against the


adjudicated these these claims on a program basis based on the fact that both parties stood in the same shoes and neither party technically would have had priority in the alternative though what we're looking at is because


years to collect it why wouldn't it continue for those for that seven years it just it just seems logical to me that that would be the way it would work i mean yeah you probably just probably the best way to handle things if you want to do something to try to collect on that judgment


clear that if you don't raise a defense in the circuit in the administrative hearing you could procedurally defaulted that and you can't raise it in the circuit court and certainly not in the public court for the first time at appeal there's just there's a small exception for


commission but there still would have been the newspaper ads and there still would have been the taking of photographs and there still would have been signs in front of houses which don't say for sale by owner they say cisco so again that that's the apparent


aggressive i think that testified that testimony alone shows that living with the brother probably was not an alternative a reasonable alternative but without talking the brother about i mean he pretty could've given them more from ation i totally agree with that


if that was a clue did with the disposition report said the respondent was discharged six months ago and was discharged to a community setting within a week he had not done well at


to be of the christian face there were certain requirements for them to to be involved in the process yes even in the after school program participants were you know young children up to


the courts are asked to look at the actual use of the property versus here it's the whole emphasis is on the purpose and so the intent i say matters is put more up front in this context and as a property


well i think i think alfred h h defines the current current state of yes and when the exceptions apply


the state farm has taken issue with the finding of the trial court that there is a potential in the underlying action for property damage as defined in the policy to be approved and that's essentially


an ambiguity when there is a provision in an insurance policy that is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation then the reviewing or must and the word is must


well potentially yes because then their actions they would not have had any legal justification in erecting a gate or a fence system over a couple of at this point


violations of the act the nursing home should get a conditional license and that hurt meant how can i find a facility based on two different formulas


and have to pay large sums of attorney's fees because somebody has decided to make matters much more complex than they need because they want to be helped to do it right in this case i think is


we're talking about for purposes of this sat you whether they are these individuals the supervisors or managers under the test set forth in the statute and


that is the doctor wives who treated her that day indicated in a statement that he agreed with all pertinent clinical information including history physical exam and plan so with the advent of managed care although it is


i was at that hearing and page one eleven of the transcript indicates that the claimant testified that her legs were on fire and she not only needed to sit down but also lie down and in order to relieve her pain so it


actually only introduced around ten i'm sorry only published around ten images to the jury in this case it was one hundred fourteen we only introduced thirty admitted thirty to thirty five


the evidence in the record undercuts what the plaintiff is claiming now and the plaintiff all he said you know provided in support of or in response to the most for summary judgment was a declaration that contradicted that


undercut by his own deposition testimony that the reason he went there was based on information from the state of tennessee his own doctors who were up there and that he had already intern into a contract with dr nasim in november of one


necessary they really first came up under circumstances where a court was unsure whether it would be an adequate forum and so it impose conditions but we suggested them now when courts do suggest do impose them


including our own sixth circuit in the dowling case which involved foreign plaintiffs what the court said was with respect to private interest factors this is


are at least are issues of fact about her compliance before march first that she should have a jury to determine and should have an opportunity to appear before a jury to prove that she


site by the time the p a got there if my client had done his job properly with respect to those areas where he and the others associated in this enterprise were working there should


have they should have presented such a well you're on our way to go at it but at least i'm trying to get you know what's the underlying state of record to see what what are the things that we need to look at you


sr from subsequently attempting to terminate the author's one nine hundred seventy five grant during the second terminations window but the district court and plaintiffs have acknowledged the validity of goldies assignment yet plaintiffs urged


fashion whatsoever that that parties were free to deal with with with these issues contractually one one looks at a an agreement almost in this context as an


firm decision of the district court for this reason the right of terminations as we all know was and acted to give a second chance to the author and to the heirs it's an important right and one that should not be casually or impliedly waiver


versus the fact or the charge of the charge is somebody broke the windows in my tenants house now the reason i'm pressing this is i'm actually running a crack house in


the floor so i can start with the way the district court decided it and the district court decided that the sailors had until eleven fifty nine to complete their duties and then the question of


individuals for which f c a us agreed to extend the warranty so what we have here is a situation where there was absolutely no relationship between f c a us and the plaintiffs that issue in this case you have an


so in that sense it could never stand anything to a vehicle owner because it's not directed to not intended to be seen by vehicle owners it's not put out in public really like to read phrase things and change things that in asking that good technical service will have


a v six dash three point five liter vin for vehicles for preparation and possible replacement at that your complaint yes it doesn't done that quote so we don't know that's exactly what the bulletin itself i apologize i don't have it with


guy is cited jones for doing unsafe things and he's warned and if you do this very thing again you're going to get fired and he goes off and does the same thing in leads to forklift running and


course we'll have the next case please


if you live there for ten years you're going to have these health problems and nobody wants to buy such a such a property are you saying that that's not even the right standard that any


the quantities are what's important the ice will play with just shows you quantities and then you seem to agree you've got to connect to harm to help somehow


hours may please the court mr edwards can prevail in this case only if he can establish that the federal railroad administration through its regulations promulgated a requirement that imposes on railroads a perpetual duty of toilet


is that case it's just that they used to live witness instead the state orchestrated this the state benefited greatly miles was not going to say just as he didn't when he confessed to detective felt house


entirely statute of limitations and the last sentence does say that and the mare that us still is right on the merits on these other issues saying that i find merit in their arguments we believe doesn't constitute a holding a ruling she


district court or some the main driver was cooperation yeah i think i can see that i'm trying to remember specifically how his sentencing was argued but i think the main driver would become cooperation and the lack of criminal history i mean


determination that we must collectively bargain with the carriers for a fair and equitable seniority lists of the first thing we ask for is that we be allowed to participate in the collective bargaining the union refused to allow us to participate in the collective bargaining over this issue and your argument was


disagreement over the interpretation of it not up and so wheeling in all these cases enjoying things when the caterer goes out and takes an affirmative action to change the contract and he keeps saying change the contract change the contract we didn't change the contract we said we have


can the sixth circuit is pleased to be able to sit here and this is story quite room to hear arguments and two cases this afternoon as you know a member states are michigan ohio kentucky and


written can step in the discovery packet there was a note from the federal government written consent but it wasn't in there when i asked for it didn't exist and then they testified later


incorrect so the officers actions based on even the law of this circuit based on which case you look at is correct as even using the main will and so probable cause exists as well as a reasonable suspicion of the


making the argument claim five is the same argument that senator maloney made so if it's if it's not futile you're talking about them bringing this exact same argument now


this to a jury in a way that still preserves any chance that mr paul has under element three of the sort of offense while conceding that the court has already ruled on element one of the sworn in saying you cannot use that


no problem with that standing alone that obviously is holy we have to follow the holding to the supreme court i really doubt the supreme court had this situation in mind when they wrote that dick and not only is


but during the plea agreement and the parties agreed to apply the lower amount for the purposes of the sentencing guidelines the united states didn't think it would be worthwhile to engage in to take the time of the


the third robbery charge that p and c robbery of march thirteenth two thousand and thirteen the proofs in this case


the essence of your opponent's argument seems to be that this is a relates to case as opposed to a complete preemption case so if you could address that that would be helpful your honor this is a arista complete preemption case and


excuse me they're not part of the fire department at that point where if you look at the terminations letter from august twenty sixth two thousand and fourteen it specifically states a post on facebook indicating fire department personnel would not have a job as i have october twenty sixth me act


support the fire department so isn't that talking to the whole public of the village lincoln heights saying hey everybody who supports the fire department which presumably is


jericho and four and two to fran that had nothing to do with the prior ones everything had gotten seized at the march twenty second so to me that they are they are far apart in time and they are simply not related you know that's


the white pill to her why is that not evidence of intent related to this very skinny as opposed to unrelated other conduct that you're trying to say want to drug dealer all


seventy six what that is is it's a threshold and it says that if the debtor is the income as determined by the statement of her monthly income is below the threshold then a creditor such as myself does not have


easement across one point seven two acres of land and we had a trial in front of the magistrate judge to determine the amount of just compensation to be paid to the property owner


percent more valuable than the comparable properties because it has a view of from the highway and there billboards on the property you know that debt produce rental income and in the so he said on the one hand


the issue with that is that there are almost no elements that will listen a story facts for instance a date is not an element so that would that doesn't count there are almost no elements for any crime that would list the necessary facts so you first off you can't use dates the only can't crimes i'm aware


and you're right that our position is that this doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional question an example of one that might be if the agency said we're declining to institute your petition because you're a woman


each other and we don't find that they are the board says we don't find that they're the same petitioner after sort of analyzing whether they should sort of impute them to be the same petitioner which is exactly the analysis that


those cases as it is the way we see it and there are findings here and we believe there's substantial evidence here and we've done our best to provide a road map to point you to the evidence in the record that supports the findings by the examiner in the board and accordingly in


convert as in the present the read back where normal references another prior art whether that application is not obvious even in all the prior proceedings when that element was given full patentable weight as a structural limitation and


then employers would hire every available engineer in their industry and have them sign an assignment provision and then immediately fire those employees any invention for those engineers would require assignments provided


qualifies management structure and that's in all of the different claims management instructions is already defined to have a characteristic in each of these claims i can and management instructions have two characteristics i mean that's normal english usage of language things can


seems most likely that it is simply an alert that the server is configured to interpret a received phone message as being an alert and in response to that the server has previously configured to lock down all doors in an area or to disable


of the policy of the privacy policy could be removal that's not something that either the agency or the or the administrative judge addressed below welcome


suits not just one be different one suit there being no impact on the functionality of the probability of advance coming out it had to be multiple decks and by having three consecutive cards or four consecutive


and we're looking at some section b and and there are two points to be made here the st is that overall this entire section seven thousand and thirteen dollars all of this is directed


the as you suggest a a complex question of state all that was not briefed before the board the question was whether boeing can market electronic warfare technical data to notify rd parties that it owns those data and


a court i mean do you see the the contingent events that are all linked up in a long chain that make this feel somewhat tenuous or do you not


control there's just no evidence of that that's something we're can argue but they never presented any evidence on


explicit construction the choir's that is implicitly adopting a new construction and it's reviewed the novo and that's exactly here what happened here the board adopted an express construction generally referring


issue if you have more questions on that i'm happy to answer them but i also wanted to come back to the question that you had asked about if you agree with them about size and shape a point that my colleague didn't really argue i'm happy to answer questions you


supreme court to vacate the portions of the decision that would have been challenged because we've been we would have been deprived of the right to appeal but as i say i don't think that that's necessary here because for james makes clear that the court has missed


purpose under oregon law that creates a presumption of an easement by itself and that is something that the c s c never considered either and then finally in addition to the compulsory consent the


right i think that this is also an issue of st impression to what the c f r a provides remedies for someone in this session so those there's a lot of undecided territory here and


it was caution in alice in this court said it too it's easy to to boil any patent down to some some basic principle but here the conventional method for conducting real estate was you know the realtor and i we have to work out a time we


of feedback when the directional valve is sent back to a neutral position so can you walk us through that i'm actually not sure that that i can


another point i think that's important so understand your honor is that this rotex evidence stands on its own the evidence of contemporary contemporaneous documents very evidence


subsequent events were guarding a final money judgment could affect standing to appeal the permanent injunction or to make the case entirely moot given the lack of case law i think it's it's worth just putting this in some practical terms because really this


want to just correct briefly what i said that six i'm not no i'm not saying that at all your honor in the district court's claim construction decision it refers back to the p tab it relies on the p tab for the persuasive authority so that


saying that you would have been better off with respect irreparable harm if you had licensed those other companies to begin distributing right away no i'm not i'm not going to i'm not going that essentially


could've been solved if you'd gone back to the skinny label but mechanically i was left wondering if you had decided to do that if you decided in july you know what we're too worried about the possible infringement let's go back to the


doesn't appear in the in the joint appendix so is well it's i just not as confident as you are but if you say that that is the document that is exhibit fifty


to ok and section d that far fifty two to one hundred and eighty seven basically is that the government reserves the right to exercise auctioneer's so it is telling the contractor that


merits of his allegations in the standing phase right i mean i think my classic standing case is some guy who's had two employees who's never done any contracting work challenges a contract and it's true that the


disrupting negotiations or for being mean to your opponent to them and that's a big difference right there there is a difference but here i think what the court is trying to do is is look and see do the circumstances


it doesn't have to be an intentional thing but the question at the end of the day was this guy cord had been one of the people who do this at the end of the year there's no reason why he should have been and you're


judicial punishment is where he actually has to make the final decision so i believe he received the notice at the very same time he is assigned defense counsel and he has an opportunity to read the charges against him to work with his counsel to make a decision as to whether he wants to accept


and no there's evidence in the record that these pats are soft differently valued succession are damaged experts said that the question is whether at trial i don't remember whether at trial when that when we didn't get the introduction it was evident before the jury think that's what we're asking about


substantive boundaries whatsoever on the front end there is a capacious definition of national security which includes anything that effects the economy thereafter the president think doesn't really say


algorithm leading to improve sort out on column seven line seventeen through twenty one method of gaining spatially separated data may be to use compensation algorithms that's the analog of the evans pattern that he's talking about as those killed in


but fixed as to what reference point and for the board they said the claimed invention is for the entirety of the teleconference and for the reference it's only you know perhaps with respect to how the echo cancellation d


me not much else in that case has the clear ever standard right but the majority of this case because there is no standard objective standard within the four corners the majority of the case is


by the way tells us has to be supported in the specification then we get to the rd question if you will in the us or the burke i'm a question there may be an inventive concept then the question is was it well understood routine and conventional that is the only factual question on


computation of local process modification that change those constraints the board found the local process modification limitation was met both based on code the supposed teaching


is not supported by substantial evidence the board often relied on figure six the board stated and this is on page thirty four dollars to thirty five dollars of its decision figure six a cody provides another example of a constraint


this instance there was it least two ambiguities on the piece of this email if you're going to take it as potentially being some kind of notice by the government i think it's a quid understand that when the government is providing notice what it's providing is notice of its


and so for the government to actually do that for the government to proceed and to send the notice the government has to have that intent and then to communicate that and hence the contractor and i think there's an ambiguity and they have the and that is literally what the it in other words it


heat sensitive region of the state or can't you're not going to want to do to use a material that can soften her


in the record but the fact the matter is the district court found that he had sufficient context to decide the issue because he had the prosecution history in front of him and he had the relevant portions of the n p a in front of them as well as the patents and the disclosure and you


concept is there some element or combination of elements that isn't bent to implements the abstract idea so if we had for example a patent that was direct so let's say the abstract idea we disagree with you and agree with the


to that described in parts it's nice that we are persuaded that sentence about the similarity is all there is in this decision about the alleged motivation to combine part six hundred


position was that we go back to intermediate state appellate court where their decision there was also largely on reason but they do cite a supreme court case and so if we look at their application that's been quite case that's what i was


cases not a single one involved a governmental entity contracting with a private entity from another state and you see where it's going in those thirty two


on the video right well it's happens on what's on the video evidence part of what the officers admit happened i mean you have was there a breakdown in newman no there was no and so he's lying there and they're trying to get him out from under the


or passive resistance and non passive resistance do we have any cases that you've read because i haven't found any where we would treat it as passive resistance where someone flees from the police officers not to know i don't ok i think that if someone i think that if someone's an active


we talked about you asked what the test was and i'm going to come back to what you discussed and you mentioned scott versus harris and that's exactly correct you can take the district court's interpretation of the video what the supreme court has said you're free to apply your own interpretation of the video but the fact


almost exclusively but there are part of that there are the record augie they are part of the record on appeal but they were not part of the record at the time the trial judge ruled on the motions


of the trade secret the text exchange certainly goes to it however the the details of the conversation is from mr prices testimony where he says


furthermore as there is no evidence in the summary judgment record from which it could fairly be inferred that the business of the police officer had any understanding tacit or explicit to deprive the customer of any right secured by the constitution or laws of the united


are the employee parked behind the other vehicle while the officer showed up and said the dealer wanted the car and she'd have to leave and then instructed her to remove her things the district court found that was enough for joint action because they blocked the man he