case the case been assigned to district judge my eyes and that and that because the nd judge had got involved in the case and that there was no orders demonstrating that the st judge had asked the judge to intervene not reflect what judge and he will ever reassign why doesn't the fact that another judge started handling the case or it's like that and there's nothing there's nothing that says by written order in that room when you look at the hunch from the data logical i found thirty keep instances in which there was an order of reassign and many did you find in which there was no order reassign not how do you kno iowa nation if there was no you search for order of my definition if there was no order you don't know that there was no order your honor when i searched for what cases that involved reassignments in the middle district so i did specifically for orders and in fact even even when the issue came it wasn't that i actually searched for an order in reviewing the record trying to understand why the case and then to find issues for appeal that realized that there were no order i quired i guess expecting a standing order or some sort of explanation it was only only when i learned that there was nothing that points out in a concern about the st asking the nd judge to intervene but that's a completely different scenario the brown case that you're talking about it was assigned to one judge there's no indication that that judge had given up that assignment and the other judge was reaching in and also the use of the term jurisdiction comes into the concurring opinion and i looked at this and whether one judge has jurisdiction  struck me as sort of a casual term and as a way of describing the nd judge reaching into a case but that's not what we have here you you're looking for an order there's no requirement in the local rule the  chief just read that there actually is an order but there's no indication in the record here that either of the judges has objected to this transfer but so so why are you making an assumption that an order was required idea of rules and precedent then it seems like if if cases can be randomly reassigned i believe it impacts an issue bigger than this case but an overall perception of transparency and fairness of the courts now i can't say that there was any malicious reason reassignment that's not my argument the army that i have here is that there is nothing in the in the record to state suggest or imply that judge will relinquished jurisdiction over to judge and those there's a documentary reflecting that that happened so there's a transparency to the transfer has been noted are you looking for a reason for the transfer no your honor but the transfer has been noted you are aware of the transfer it was noted in the docket so where's the lack of transparency it was noted in the docket by the clerk's office not that it was  understand that in cases throughout the federal and state court system sometimes there are multiple transfers during the course of litigation which i can go on for years i do understand that your honor and again i'm not  a district judge petitioning the circuit court for a writ of mandamus consigning the chief judge he was the chief judge of the northern district of texas and in that case the chief judge entered orders in reassign cases can and in many instances will impact impact the perception of the courts and in fact it has been recognized that the courts the random case assignments promote fairness and impartiality and that the manipulation of judicial assignments and reassignments can deprive parties of the right to a fair hearing and and give the perception did you ever seek to have the nd judge recused if you were concerned about this transfer and you viewed it whether it was lack of transparency or just a larger problem with the court system in general did you ever seek to have the  people who clerked for federal judges and while it's not in any book not in any takes it is always warned not to move to disqualify these federal judges they get filed all the time i mean i'm just saying but so you're out here complaining now about the transfer but so i'm asking you rather than complaining to our court what steps did you take in the district court to complain did you file a motion to recuse and the reassignment without knowing and so how come i requested information st be afore you the clerk's office responded that they didn't have to comply with for you and then i requested information under the common our right of access to judicial records to get information because i don't want to make such an allegation without having the information but the clerk's office interpreted my nd correspondence as a motion to disqualified and it was only then that judgment those are interpreted it as a motion to disqualify and address the whole reassignment issue so so to ask you a question i never raised the issue of time and i was trying to gather information it wasn't until the clerk's office about   i knew would be an issue but ultimately here we are and so are are is that issue i see them of my time your honor ron thank you mr i give you three minutes in reply mr  my name is eric natura long with trial counsel josh walker we represent the individual officers in this case that the us supreme court has told us that appeals of sanctions orders given the broad discretion of the district judges are often themselves frivolous and i think this is no exception you understand that he's addressed one issue in his opening if you confine yourself to addressing that issue he can't address another issue in rebuttal or reply but if you go into other issues he's entitled to do so that's fine with me bring up point you want to time the way you want to are not i just will make sure you're aware of that i understand your honor and with regard to the other issues that were not raised i would rely on my brief i do not intend to go in with regard to the reason simon issue i think it's clear that there's absolutely no merit to it this action was reassigned in january of two thousand and fifteen to judgmen final judgment had been entered after final judgment and so for a period of three and a half years there is no issue raised with regard to judgment those as authority in any respect to enter the approximately sixteen orders that he entered over that time if anything shows consent i'm confident that judgment i was acting as the judge judge honeywell never suggesting that there was an issue with with it and i think want to point out really quickly and i think it's consistent with some of the misrepresentations we've seen in this case with regard to what authorities say the in ray brown case is a classic example i almost wish we had cited it in our initial brief or our answer brief because the portions that mr locke is citing as judge branch pointed out is in the concurring opinion the majority opinion specifically rejects that view and they expressly state that jurisdiction is lodged in a court not in a person appointed and confirmed judge of the united states district court for the middle district of florida he had the same power and authority to do what he did in this case as any other judge on the court the suggestion that  he was biased in any respect is absolutely refuted by a cursory review of the record i will not go into those things because they were not going to buy mr locke so we don't see in this case how there is any basis for reversal judgment those acted well within his discretion in sanctioning plaintiff's counsel there was most certainly jurisdiction and there was no requirement for a cruise unless the court has any questions of me i'm happy to rest on the briefs and request that this court affirm thank you counsel mr bonner do you have anything to add or you want to rest on the same brief thank you mr locke three minutes first time in the in the majority opinion it stated that it saw no reason to consider the nd judge's authority and or jurisdiction so the majority opinion opinion actually never addressed the point of of the nd judge's jurisdiction directly or indirectly however and it did state and this is where it's consistent with the concurring opinion  brown is that the nd judge would have had had the power to get involved in the case if the st judge requested the nd judge to do so that's consistent with other concurring opinion the record does not reflect that you're on so we could put in the record whether or not there was a request made to do that and if there was that's the end of this case if i guess if if the judge never questioned that it had been assigned away from him is this just a matter of a lack of clarity in a documentary that the clerk's office and trying to document that this transfer had occurred well didn't say per judge per judge's order is that the piece that's missing here knows far as you're concerned no in fact i'm our argument it i guess is consistent with what's in brown and there doesn't in the brown case and no it's not around we have one abuse of discretion for not even considering the issue of jurisdiction but the concurring opinion did in fact continue to consider the issue of jurisdiction and concluded that the nd judge not that that is orders should have been vacated because he liked the