[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Whenever you're ready.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:00:14] Speaker 01:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:17] Speaker 01:
Elizabeth Richardson Royer on behalf of the appellant, Terrence Baker.

[00:00:21] Speaker 01:
I plan to reserve 2 minutes for a bottle.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
But I'll watch the clock very well.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
This appeal raises several issues.

[00:00:27] Speaker 01:
But this morning I hope to focus on 2 of them.

[00:00:30] Speaker 01:
First, the district court's failure to comply with this court's

[00:00:39] Speaker 01:
that occurred when the district court based Mister Baker's 209-month sentence on a litany of facts and information about mass murders, other homicides that were marginally relevant, not disclosed prior to sentencing and about which Mister Baker was not able to provide his own evidence or challenge these facts in any way.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Starting with the first issue,

[00:01:05] Speaker 01:
At the original sentencing, Mr. Baker received 125 months for each of the Hobbs Act counts and 84 months for the mandatory seven-year consecutive term for the 924C.

[00:01:18] Speaker 01:
This court reversed the conviction on the 924C and remanded, and this is a quote, for a reduction in sentence or a retrial on that count.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
So there were two options for the district court.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
One would have been a retrial, which the government chose not to pursue.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
The other was a reduction in sentence.

[00:01:35] Speaker 01:
And Mr. Baker's position is that because the custodial sentence and the term of supervisor lease, the restitution, everything was the same.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
The reduction sentence that the court ordered did not occur.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you on the council.

[00:01:51] Speaker 03:
So let's say I agree with your reading of what the district court, I mean, what our Ninth Circuit said.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
Because the government has this argument that, well,

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure I totally follow the government's arguments in terms of what was reduced or not.

[00:02:05] Speaker 03:
But let's say for a second, I agree with your reading here.

[00:02:07] Speaker 03:
But the government's argument is that the special assessment went from $300 to $200.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
So talk to me about, I know this sounds silly, but talk to me about why they're wrong to say going from $300 to $200 is not a, quote anything here, a reduction in sentence.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
the district court.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
And I think that judges speak to each other.

[00:02:35] Speaker 01:
In in ways that they know each other will understand.

[00:02:38] Speaker 01:
And so when the Court of Appeals says reduce the sentence, they're not talking about a $100 special assessment.

[00:02:47] Speaker 01:
They're talking about the sentence as we all understand that word to me, which means the custodial sentence.

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
I would posit that even if the term of

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
is really a stretch, respectfully.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
And if the court had said vacate and remand, would your answer be different?

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
Absolutely.

[00:03:14] Speaker 01:
This argument is based on the language of the mandate and what the mandate ordered the district court to do.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
If all that the Court of Appeal had said was we vacate the sentence and remand, then that would have been for a plenary resentencing.

[00:03:27] Speaker 01:
And I would have no issue, not no issue.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
I wouldn't have this issue about the resentencing.

[00:03:35] Speaker 01:
And you can ask whether it was proper for the court to issue the mandate that way.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
But the district court is required to follow it, whether it's correct or incorrect.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
The district court is not allowed to evaluate or

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
make any value judgment about what the court has ordered it to do.

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
And in this case, it did not reduce the sentence.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
It gave the exact same custodial sentence, the same term of supervised release.

[00:04:02] Speaker 01:
And it has to go back for the court to follow the court's mandate for that reason.

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
So the government in this case, it's sentencing, re-sentencing, asked for 208 months.

[00:04:11] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
So that's an indication of what I think everyone understood maybe going into this thing.

[00:04:17] Speaker 03:
I take it if it were, I'm not trying to abide you here, but if it was 208 months, then that would be a reduction in sentence.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
If it were 208 months, I would not have the first argument.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
I would still have the second argument.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
But because the district court refused to go down, reduce it by even a month, I don't think that, I think that this court has to send it back because of the terms of the first mandate.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
I think there's the separate reason for the court to send it back is this district judges

[00:04:47] Speaker 01:
for a page long speech about facts and statistics and specific instances of egregious mass killings during the sentencing of my client for robbery.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
And this is a problem for a number of reasons.

[00:05:03] Speaker 01:
It's a problem under Rule 32 because this information was never disclosed.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
The judge made comments that are

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
you know, ripe for challenge such as the scourge of mass killings in this country is the result of illegal firearm possession, which we have no way of knowing that that's true, but I imagine you could challenge that.

[00:05:22] Speaker 01:
The idea that mass killings are related to run-of-the-mill gang-related armed robberies in the first place is subject to challenge.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
But because the district judge did not provide this information to the defense before sentencing, as it was required to do by Rule 32,

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
the defense was unable to challenge it.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
And it's clear.

[00:05:43] Speaker 01:
And the government says, we don't know that this affected the sentence in any way.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
But I don't think that's a fair reading of the sentencing transcript.

[00:05:50] Speaker 01:
And I think if you look at when the speech occurs, which is immediately before imposition of the sentence, and how emotional and clearly personally impacted this judge feels about firearm violence,

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
And then he says twice that the reason he's imposing this one month less than the high end of the guidelines is for deterrence.

[00:06:16] Speaker 01:
I think it's really not a fair reading of the transcript to say that it didn't affect the sentence.

[00:06:21] Speaker 03:
So let me ask you, counsel.

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
So back in the day, I attended a lot of sentencing here in San Diego as an AUSA.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
And often, judges would say in a methamphetamine, that was the real hot issue back then.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
This is a scourge on society.

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
This is ruining generations of kids.

[00:06:38] Speaker 03:
you have to be held accountable for that.

[00:06:39] Speaker 03:
And that was said hundreds of times when I was in court.

[00:06:43] Speaker 03:
Is that also problematic or is that different from what happened in this case?

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
I think that's totally different.

[00:06:49] Speaker 01:
And if the district judge had said in this case, you know, armed robberies are a huge problem in this society, in this district, and I have to give a high sentence to discourage them, we wouldn't be here raising this issue.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
But the judges focus on heinous crimes that really have very little, if any, relationship to what Mr. Baker did.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
And the length of his speech and the vehemence with which he presented it make this different than the run-of-the-mill case where a judge says firearms are a problem or drugs are a problem.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
This is a different situation.

[00:07:25] Speaker 01:
And this judge is making this speech repeatedly.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
it's clearly something that is affecting the sentencing and Mr. Baker should have been allowed to challenge the beliefs that were based on these facts and statistics that we really have no way of knowing whether they're relevant or accurate in any way.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
So how do you draw the line between I think it was the war case where they actually even have a study

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
from maybe the Bureau of Prisons that was cited.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
And the court said, well, you know, it's really for general proposition.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
So if I were to say, it's no secret that today we've had a lot of surge in violent crime.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
We've seen these mass shootings.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
This is the environment we live in.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
That doesn't really seem to me to be distinguishably different.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
It's actually less objectionable than the war.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
situation or the one where somebody relied on a news article, for example, he's sort of painting a picture.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
So what's wrong with that?

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
I think respectfully, I think that what happened in war was it was a much more limited thing that the judge was looking at.

[00:08:36] Speaker 01:
It was a BOP study about recidivism.

[00:08:39] Speaker 01:
And in that case, there was expert testimony about that particular defendant and his high rate of his high risk of recidivism.

[00:08:47] Speaker 01:
And the expert essentially provided information that was cumulative, you could say, with the BOP study.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
And so part of the court's analysis there was to say, look, we really don't think this study was the thing that changed the sentence, and it wasn't a problem.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
In this case, it goes well beyond just a statement that youthful offenders have a high risk of recidivism, which really nobody would quibble with.

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
But he's talking about specific egregious crimes.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
He's talking about the killing of law enforcement officers.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
He's talking about the mass killing of children at a school.

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
He's talking about these really heinous things without any proof or evidence that they're related to Mr. Baker's run-of-the-mill armed robbery of a Sprint store in any way.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
And that really takes this case well outside of the war realm.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
And I'll save the remainder.

[00:09:44] Speaker 01:
Oh, yes.

[00:09:45] Speaker 00:
Judge Wallace.

[00:09:46] Speaker 00:
Sometimes district court judges get into mischief because they talk too much.

[00:09:52] Speaker 00:
Being a former district judge, I can understand that.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
But they do make comments.

[00:09:59] Speaker 00:
Very often they make comments.

[00:10:02] Speaker 00:
Sometimes they're to help the defendant to understand what their role is.

[00:10:07] Speaker 00:
What you're saying is because he made certain statements,

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
He wasn't following the mandate.

[00:10:15] Speaker 00:
But the district court properly reduced the sentence on the 929C count as directed by the court.

[00:10:25] Speaker 00:
So why don't we say that taking it as a whole, the district court, although perhaps was overstating areas that give you some heartburn now,

[00:10:41] Speaker 00:
that he was following because there's evidence in the record that he was following the mandate on the action he did take.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
Well, I don't think it's fair to read the mandate as saying that the district judge had to either reduce the sentence on the 924C or retry it, which is I think the only reading that would make his action actually comply with the mandate.

[00:11:11] Speaker 01:
Instead, I think it has to be read as you have to either retry the 924C or reduce what is left of the sentence.

[00:11:19] Speaker 01:
And that's the only reading that makes sense to me.

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
And so he did not reduce the sentence when it was 209 months before and 209 months after.

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
Because your argument is that, and I'll give you time rebuttal, don't worry.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
But your argument is that, look, the 924C count is gone.

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
So there's nothing to reduce.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
Absolutely.

[00:11:37] Speaker 03:
It's gone.

[00:11:38] Speaker 03:
Now, if you retry it, there's a conviction.

[00:11:40] Speaker 03:
OK, then we go from there.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
But at this point, at this point, I'm pointing to the Ninth Circuit's decision of Baker.

[00:11:46] Speaker 03:
There was no 924C conviction at that point.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
Yes, which is why I think the government's argument that the sentence for that count was reduced doesn't make sense when you read the language of the mandate.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:12:00] Speaker 03:
Yeah, go ahead, and then we'll give you a break.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
But we'll give you the two minutes.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
I appreciate it.

[00:12:11] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:12] Speaker 04:
May it please the court, Jenna McKee on behalf of the United States.

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
Starting with the issue of the mandate, the court did comply with this court's mandate.

[00:12:22] Speaker 04:
It complied with the literal term of the mandate by reducing the sentence specifically with respect to the special assessment, which no one is disputing, is a part of a sentence.

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
And it also complied with the mandate in the way that defense counsel raises the issue of what the Ninth Circuit meant in saying reducing the sentence.

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
because the district court was required to calculate the guidelines properly and it removed the entire 9.24 C sentence being the special assessment, the consecutive term of months of imprisonment.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
the district court was in full compliance with the mandate for those reasons.

[00:13:13] Speaker 02:
And so at the end

[00:13:23] Speaker 04:
the same.

[00:13:24] Speaker 04:
Total terms of months.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
Yes, the same total term of supervised release without that other concurrent term.

[00:13:34] Speaker 04:
But the special assessment that was reduced is a question of the sentence.

[00:13:38] Speaker 02:
And therefore the

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
Of course, they had to take out the 924C based on the court's decision.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
So I'm going to reduce the sentence overall, because everything's back on the table under the mandate rules.

[00:14:00] Speaker 02:
And I'm going to cut off $100.

[00:14:02] Speaker 02:
There's just something that doesn't sit right with that if you're actually saying reduce the sentence, if that is the only change that really happens.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:14:14] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:14:15] Speaker 04:
And I think if the 9th circuit in its mandate had specifically or that opinion overall was going into whether or not the

[00:14:30] Speaker 04:
the district court was dealing with here was a remand after the firearm was suppressed.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
So what the 9th Circuit had grappled with was what the evidence would be underlying the 924 C count and remanded for either a retrial or reduction of sentence on those grounds.

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
The only sentencing challenge that was brought up before this court at that time of the

[00:14:58] Speaker 04:
the district court.

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
The district

[00:15:07] Speaker 04:
the district court was trying to comply with the mandate and I believe that it did comply with the mandate, both

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
Obviously.

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
If the mandate had required a reduction in the sentence only with respect to that reverse count.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
When the court of said vacated.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
The court had the option to make you that.

[00:15:51] Speaker 04:
But the government had the opportunity to retry it.

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
And I can't imagine.

[00:15:57] Speaker 02:
Well, we have we kind of have a 2 prong approach here.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
You go back to the district court and you can

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
give up, they say they don't, the government says they don't want to retry it, right?

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
So now we're into the well-reduce.

[00:16:12] Speaker 02:
And what I'm saying is, had the court not focused on the 924 C count, if that was the focus, why didn't the court say vacate?

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
Because that would be the proper instruction, wouldn't it?

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
That would be a proper instruction.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
I think- But instead, the district court didn't do this.

[00:16:35] Speaker 02:
So you have to give some meaning to the difference between reduce and vacate.

[00:16:42] Speaker 02:
That's something I'd be interested in the government's position on.

[00:16:47] Speaker 04:
the district court.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
The government's position would be the sentence and reduce that sentence, which is that the mandates words.

[00:16:54] Speaker 04:
The overall sentence and what's implied there is that the

[00:17:05] Speaker 04:
was required to reduce the overall sentence, which it did by removing all of the portions of the sentence that were related to the 9.24 C count.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
And that includes the special assessment.

[00:17:18] Speaker 04:
And all of that that the district court was grappling with at the time of the sentencing hearing.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
was considering how that was a reduction in the defendant's overall sentence.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
But when the case came back down, the conduct was still the same.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
And so the district court was still dealing with nothing had changed other than the fact that that particular count was removed.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
And under those circumstances, it was a reduction in sentence in accordance with the mandate.

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
So counsel, I just want to ask something, because I think the government's actually done everything right in this case.

[00:17:54] Speaker 03:
You guys did not write that language in the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

[00:17:57] Speaker 03:
And now you have to deal with it.

[00:18:03] Speaker 03:
And I think you did the right thing by asking the sentence of 208 months.

[00:18:07] Speaker 03:
I would have done the same thing.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
But now we are where we are.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
And if you're Mr. Baker,

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
And counsel says, Mr. Baker, I've got great news.

[00:18:17] Speaker 03:
Not only did you win the 924C count, but you're going to get a reduction in sentence.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
And he says, great.

[00:18:23] Speaker 03:
And he goes, that means you don't have to pay that $100 special assessment.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
I mean, is that what all this litigation has been over is about $100 special assessment?

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's hard to, again, you didn't create this, OK?

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
I want to be clear.

[00:18:37] Speaker 03:
You've inherited this.

[00:18:38] Speaker 03:
But you can, I mean,

[00:18:40] Speaker 03:
From their perspective, I'm trying to get a sense of why was all the litigation done in a published 9th Circuit decision to have a brandishing 924C, big boy 924C for $100 special assessment.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
It seems to me it's hard for me to get at.

[00:18:56] Speaker 03:
Can you find any cases that would help us get to the idea that the $100 special assessment qualifies as a reduction in sentence?

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
I'm not going to go into specific cases.

[00:19:13] Speaker 04:
I think but the night circuit is typically dealing with are things like

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
the special assessment.

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
If not a part of the sentence, then what is the special assessment?

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
And they think that's why both parties have not raised the issue that this is not a part of the

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
the district court.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
And so.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
Going along those lines of Mister Baker's feelings about it.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
He would probably be equally upset if the district court had just reduced his sentence by a day.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
Because custodial term of his sentence.

[00:19:51] Speaker 04:
And without further guidance in that mandate saying that it needed to be the custodial

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
I'm happy to do some more research and provide additional authorities to the court.

[00:20:09] Speaker 04:
But the special assessment just at face value is a portion of it.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
No, the mood in this case is where I would have gone.

[00:20:15] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're right.

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
We do have cases that say this case is not moot because there's a special assessment still involved.

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
So I think that's your best.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
I don't think we need to see any 2088.

[00:20:23] Speaker 03:
I think that is your best argument on this one.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
It's just a question of we always have these mandate issues, as you know.

[00:20:30] Speaker 02:
They go back to the district court.

[00:20:32] Speaker 02:
And in a way,

[00:20:34] Speaker 02:
It's an open season, because you're supposed to do something special.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
But actually, the whole issue is back in front of the district court.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
So these mandate issues perplex the district court, I think.

[00:20:46] Speaker 02:
And then they perplex us after the fact.

[00:20:49] Speaker 02:
Because as I say, we're not the authors of that particular opinion.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
So we're just trying to unscramble the words.

[00:20:58] Speaker 04:
I think the district court did in the sentencing transcript discuss whether or not this would be in compliance.

[00:21:07] Speaker 04:
I discussed it in the sentencing memorandum as well.

[00:21:10] Speaker 04:
It is in compliance with both the literal term and what I think is a fair reading of what the

[00:21:20] Speaker 04:
the district court.

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
And briefly turning to gun violence issue.

[00:21:24] Speaker 04:
I think that as a general matter, this wasn't something that was a clear obvious care that the district court made by raising specifically this did not come up in the first sentencing.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
But the district court

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
the nature and circumstances of the offense.

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
And then when defense counsel on remand filed a sentencing recommendation, the district court again said that that sentencing recommendation trivialized this offense.

[00:21:58] Speaker 04:
And that's at page 29 of the record.

[00:22:01] Speaker 04:
And I think that all of this discussion about gun violence was specifically in response to the fact that the district court needed to explain why it was so concerned about gun violence

[00:22:11] Speaker 04:
I think that's what we're trying to do.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
We're trying to find out what the prevalence was.

[00:22:14] Speaker 04:
And I think that makes it not a clear obvious there.

[00:22:16] Speaker 04:
But certainly not a prejudicial one in that the court sentenced the defendant to the exact same term when it didn't discuss those statistics that were at issue.

[00:22:26] Speaker 04:
And under those I don't think that the defense can show plain error.

[00:22:30] Speaker 04:
And unless the court has any further

[00:22:47] Speaker 01:
I appreciate the extra time.

[00:22:48] Speaker 01:
I'll try to be brief.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
I think I understand the government's argument for why reducing the special assessment by $100 technically complies with the terms of the mandate.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
I disagree, but I understand it.

[00:23:03] Speaker 01:
But it's not just the language of the mandate that matters.

[00:23:07] Speaker 01:
This court has held that the district court may not take an action on remand that is counter to the spirit of the circuit court's decision.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
The spirit.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
And so I think that when the court invalidated the 924C conviction and ordered the district court to reduce the sentence, that the spirit of that decision was something more than just reducing the $100 special assessment.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
I think on the second point, certainly the district judge gave other reasons for imposing a high-end guideline sentence.

[00:23:46] Speaker 01:
He was actually wrong about Mr. Baker's criminal history.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
He said that he had been convicted of three robberies previously.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
That wasn't true.

[00:23:52] Speaker 01:
There was only one.

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
Mr. Baker had a wealth of mitigation evidence, not just about his childhood, but he also had been doing extraordinarily well in prison in the time between his original sentencing and resentencing.

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
So it's not a given that if the court hadn't relied on this other information about

[00:24:13] Speaker 01:
more egregious forms of gun violence that he would have given Mr. Baker the same high-end sentence.

[00:24:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, counsel.

[00:24:23] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
Again, thanks to both of you for your very good arguments and briefing in this very interesting case.

[00:24:30] Speaker 03:
So future law clerks, just remember when you're writing opinions, words matter.

[00:24:36] Speaker 03:
So this matter is submitted.