effort the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to sheriff cassell zero for two reasons i'll begin by addressing the fact that a police constitutional rights were never violated by the alleged denial of the name clearing hearing and then  allah dressed sheriff caseloads entitle me to qualified immunity in light of the fact that not all reasonable law enforcement officers of his position would believe that under these circumstances denying the happily a name clearing hearing as i recall there was only one complaint yes yes or no starts by saying your client brings us action against one county and thomas cashflow in his individual capacity so you have no official capacity suit against the sheriff who's read the complaining that's correct your honor or procedure and the st and most clear reason that the district court's denial of qualified immunity should be reversed is that the evidence in the record which consists largely of the apple lee's own testimony negates at least four of the essential elements of the claim that she is tends to make in blood so versus the city of horn like mississippi this court held that the plaintiffs who allege a violation of their due process right to a name clearing hearing must produce evidence of seven elements in this case however the evidence in the record shows in the gates four of those elements st of all it shows that the charges against the elop against the  nd the apple he was provided with a notice some with an opportunity to be heard prior to her terminations rd she never requested the hearing to clear her name and th even if the al apple lee had requested a name clearing hearing  castillo never denied apple e a name clearing hearing your honour's the record in this case clearly shows that the apple he responded untruthfully whenever sheriff castillo asked her to identify the people with whom she had discussed her allegations that a coworker had falsified his military discharge paperwork the apple he testified that sheriff castro's question was not open ended whenever he asked her to identify these people he didn't limit that to in time or sco or any other way the happily herself testified that when responding to this question she omitted at least the names of at seems to me to how much she understood she had to have dinner how many people he had if i did people before he went work for the wood county sheriff's office or was he asking about those as yes but people on within the sheriff's department who sells me like you're getting issue maybe not only everything but on this one well you are i believe that with regard to this issue there's the any fact dispute wouldn't be material because the record shows that miss cunningham she testified that this question was was open ended and included everyone in the universe and she didn't she i mean she thought that she was supposed to answer everybody who never toe and i mean the question was open ended as a mean that is  did not put a limit but we could ask things all the time an hour every day arrives and we make certain assumptions about what's really being asked even if the question is open ended if you say that all that she was admitting to that he did not state any limits but she saw all these limits as being who within the sheriff's department well that's certainly their argument your honor but there's nothing in the record that would support the idea that she understood it to be any different i think that the record shows that or that she could have reasonably understood it to have been any different the record shows that he asked her the question and she omitted those names and also asked what do we know about the question yes doesn't let somebody out but i try to correct that's right and and also it the fact that she left that person out and that how she tried to correct it is also important for the sheriff's qualified immunity ok before we leave all that to me what else is the record that says she either did or did not think the question was limited in some way despite there is no explicit limitation she testified in hearing that the question her words were open ended that there was no limitation to it and so i would take her explanation of the question as showing that she understood the question to include the universe of people with whom she discussed ok you can leave that i've mostly missed mr says about all that your honor your honor also the the a pelleas constitutional rights were not violated because the evidence in the record shows that she never requested a name clearing hearing  the appellee argues that this helmet satisfied because she asked the chief deputy if she could speak to sheriff castillo in the chief deputy said no however it's undisputed that sheriff cassell wasn't present whenever she asked to speak with them and there's no evidence in the record which would show that the appellee actually ever directly asked sheriff castillo to speak with him and to ask you about that as well as his me this sort of situation to be easy for the actual decision makers or hide behind o asking for more discovery before summary judgment so how do we do with that i mean that's sort of i think the sense of her argument is that the sheriff was behind all this and he was the one that was preventing further conversation she's asking for an opportunity to publicly clear her name and blood's bledsoe actually dealt with this particular situation itself mr bledsoe asked for the meeting in which he was ultimately terminated to be postponed and he also asked for the ability to have an attorney present with him this court held that neither of those things by themselves even if he asked those things neither of those things gave proper notice to a  to the supervisors and to the people who ultimately made this decision to terminate him that he was seeking an opportunity to clear his name and how do i want a little case in and rosen b and then clear inherent is a term of art and as we've used in the cases and it means that you have to have a hearing and beyond that i'm not quite sure what it is all about accused of is not supporting the us and that's and then i guess it doesn't say what happens then the next one of the year and also makes a decision and then he or she's had a public he it seems to me in the end yes your honor i would agree and also one thing that we can look at is the effect that even had the chief deputy said yes let's go talk to the sheriff right now what the effect of that would not have been a public hearing which would have given her the opportunity to vindicate herself the effect of that would have been a conversation with the sheriff in his office it would have been whatever it is that's complicated i'm sorry whatever it is that's contemplated has to be public and so this was not even had that been granted it would not have been it would not have been the public hearing that is contemplated by rosenstein and babble and so as well  your honor also we we simply can't interpret that request to speak with the sheriff as a request for a name clearing hearing because there are two very different things to paraphrase the words of judged jerry smith in the rosenstein dissent if a person asked for an apple then we can assume that they're asking for a gold watch in this situation that's what the that's what the the apple is asking us to do is to assume that her asking for a chat with the sheriff is tantamount to her asking for a public forum in which to vindicate herself and that simply isn't the case to build on those dollars points and i tend to agree it's hard to say she's seeking a public forum in which to vindicate herself and we know that you know what what's your i want to talk to the sheriff about i mean you say it was just going to be a conversation with the sheriff and it wouldn't have been public and all that but we don't know that well we we can based on what she asked for a talk with the sheriff there's nothing in there that would allow us to assume that it was going to be anything more than just a then just a conversation with a shared so your honour's based on that i believe m she actually terminated when was she actually told that she was terminal she was told there's a friday saturday sunday monday but today ok and a request for this hearing request for whatever it was was made when but it you're not saying it's the request of the deputy sheriff on friday it's monday when she wants or her hearing yes as  to the city's appeal process d and two there's a statement in that opinion that says the other officer for the city made it clear to the officer the they were not the also was going to get no greater whatsoever in this instance the evidence of the records that randy cunningham requested a meeting with it's holds who's going to have one on monday then then they said no you cannot meet with the sheriff and then they said we've heard enough from you and that basically honorable discharge has been removed we don't believe so because if you re read the president the person is a name clearing hearing by the terms of the unseen or the governing body in this instance in my view that is the spirit because he's the policy maker for when in the so it's not lieberman you ascribe that but counsel when you describe that earlier the meeting with the sheriff and how he was the policy maker and that sort of thing what you describe seems squarely within bledsoe because there was the board of aldermen i think of the city council and they met behind closed doors and they decided to terminate her terminate the plaintiff there that wasn't a name clearing here because it wasn't public and he wasn't there to have made a request by asking for the meeting to be delayed by asking that his lawyer outside in the hallway with him while they decided so what you described didn't sound like a name clearing hearing to me even with the questions under the and that process would give him a public forum to clear his name before the governing body that discharge him sue me the two things going on here and your client is primarily in one category and that is good lawyering using what you have a choose me what she was seeking was a way to challenge a suspicion before he made it on friday that may not be true but get to him with correcting of something she had said s me what you're really talking about is at some point whoever is managing it whoever is in front of west sheriff a lesson by entirely and independent you have a public forum where she can put her story on and it may not clear her name and i certainly don't say that it overturns that decision but it's an opportunity for her story to become known and whoever believes in the public versus where please share no guarantee but that's what pursued due process allow and so it seems to me that there's been i mean help me with this i don't quite see that what she said for monday even suggests i don't want just go to the sheriff i want you folks to bring in the press bring in the public i'm in that what what is it to mexico here she wanted her name cleared for the public as opposed to her name cleared so that the decision can be overturned whether it's ever made public or not process rights and so in so far as how the sheriff parmeno messed up within their own state procedures is not for us so we're just looking at when and how does she ask for a public form and you assume everything that you said is true but it's not none of that is material to the fact of whether she requested and was denied a public hearing on to experience in employment law some of these procedures usually are agreed upon by the opposing sides on what how you think the hearing is going to be conducted that's how i would you could if she and fourteen with the city charter requirement in henderson bursts hello the next case is the city charter required consent by the governing body and so we are saying that sure should e's argument that she was silence whenever she asked to speak to sheriff castillo the yard your honor bledsoe gives employees who are seeking a name clearing hearing the affirmative duty to ask for a hearing which is public and which would permit them the opportunity to to vindicate themselves from whatever charges that they're being terminated by your honor whether or not that plane or the plaintiff might have been silence there she still had an affirmative duty to go out and ask for a name clearing hearing she could have written a letter she could have done any number of things she chose not to do that and for that reason she she didn't ask for a name clearing hearing and brief but i just wanted to point out that this court in sims versus the city of madisonville affirmatively held that there is no due process right section six hundred and fourteen doesn't give law enforcement officers in texas a due process right and to give criminal incriminating statements under threat of losing their jobs their money and it prevents those statements from being used later on in a criminal proceeding it's uncontested there was never a criminal proceeding against ms cunningham and so therefore garrity vs new jersey just simply doesn't apply to the facts here in this case also your honor getting back to really what i believe is the heart of the issue is that no reasonable law enforcement officer and sheriff castro's position would have believed that he was being asked for a name clearing hearing just because an employee asked to speak with him under these circumstances or under any other circumstances your honor and sheriff in texas county sheriffs are asked by inmates employees citizens every day for conversations there people asked to speak with him all the time a sheriff can't be charged with assuming that a request for an audience with him would actually be a request for something else such as a name clearing hearing nothing that the  said could have reasonably been interpreted as asking for an opportunity for her to publicly clear her your honor there or the record is replete with evidence that negates st of all the majority of the essential elements of the apple these claims and also that shows that not even if even if the appeal he had made her claim had had produced evidence of those elements the records replete with evidence that would show that not all reasonable law enforcement officers and sheriff castillo's position would have believed that denying a name clearing hearing under these circumstances and under these facts would have would have been also violating the