fifty two c as a matter of law the supreme court in the reeves case stated that where there is a judgment as a matter of law then under those circumstances all the difference is must be trial where all the parties submit their briefs but fifty two c is very much like fifty c where a judge after the plaintiff rests his case in a jury trial dismisses it as a matter of law under those circumstances i would respectfully submit the term as a matter of law as a term of art it means the same thing in fifty c as it means in fifty to sixty and that being that all fav universes must still be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party there's no distinction between a trial before a jury and a bench trial what does the term as a matter drawn in favor of the nonmoving party and i respectfully submit under those circumstances the reeves case is applicable and here the district court did not grant the plaintiffs or get  granted nonmoving party all favorable efforts on the contrary she gave the favorable inference to the defendant because according to richard what the district court said because that the the plaintiffs could she drew it does not trump the testimony of feldman where he admitted that he personally drug richie that richie had a full head of that was the and considering all the evidence and all the difference is from the evidence and the fact that we had here a situation where the government had a program in place where there was a diary entry which was disregarded by the district court that diary entry named the location namely at the federal building and then the date december twenty eighth and that was the christmas party that's that the plaintiff intended when you  the where did she weigh the evidence she did not even cite the feldman testimony in her opinion she all she said that she made a finding that the behavior of richie was due to some organic factor or a modest amount of intoxication but she didn't cite any evidence in the record to support those findings you still have to have either th summary judgment type of analysis all inferences have to be construed in favor of but that's not what fifty two c is about it's a finding now you're shiftiness seems to me your argument to say well then her findings or instance are insufficient because they're not supported by the evidence so that's a different argument of course your honor that is a different do you agree that since the trial of the district judge is allowed to make findings to resolve on the evidence presented and find that making the inference is against your client that that she's permitted to do under fifty two she doesn't have to make the inferences favorable to you i disagree completely under your honors respectfully analysis because as a matter of all means it's a term of art it means when ever there is the smithsonian the supreme court covers this in the sanderson case when they refer to summary judgment and say summary judgment mirrors a situation where there's a dismissal as a matter of law and i respectfully submit that the smarted court that if you if you just say that the inference is that the nonmoving party is not that that doesn't deter her from making findings but she has to make findings consistent with the meaning of as a matter of law and as a matter of law means that she must under those circumstances court when the court hears under fifty to see all the evidence and according to acting as a finder of fact according the court in tides to enter judgment on partial findings at that point she hasn't heard all the evidence she hasn't heard the evidence on the government yet she's heard all the plaintiff's case yes right and all of the cases that interpret fifty to fifty review the district court's findings for clear air for plane air well that may be but that's the standard ruse you but the question is what inferences are drawn at that point by the district court the district court is not required to draw any as in favor of the plaintiff at that point because there is no alternate fact fact finder for one thing as there would be under all fifty where you have a jury or under a motion for summary judgment where you anticipate a jury favor of the of the nonmoving party that contract just doesn't exist here and that's why the district court can make findings and they're entitled their findings based on the district district court of you or your theory is that the district court can as the fact finder make the factual determinations as the fact finder and having made those then can decide whether on the facts as she's found them in is well within her rights well within her discretion to say to say no i've seen the evidence i've read the evidence i've heard the evidence i've looked the witnesses in the eye and i just don't believe it fifty two see the derivative support what the plaintiff is arguing here indeed it's the plaintiff here who is drawing all inferences in his own favor all ambiguous testimony in his own favor and arguing that that   and that's why the judge simply found that this case is built on sheer speculation and not on any believable evidence i with that i'd like to discuss very briefly the  how does that color the district court's findings you know well it doesn't the district court viewed that testimony and evaluated it and while the district court had decided on summary judgment that perhaps some serious misconduct apparently in the run up to the strike there the the allegation is serious yes and then there was an issue of sanctions based on conduct concern is the way the plaintiff is trying to use that to say they don't have to meet a burden of proof that the court should have gone to what is in civil litigation the nuclear option they simply ended the case and given a judgment to plaintiff there's no authority for that there simply wasn't the evidence of misconduct to support that kind of an ending to this case under this court's reasoning in the but but just to finish up and your feet got the mode decision which had been handed down one district court deny the government's beacon motion i think clearly goes against the district court's reasoning his duties had more to do with moving prisoners around but he was his office was in this building and he was at work during business hours and his boss said you know why don't you go and have yourself a drink preponderance of the evidence feldman testify that not all these people that you now all these people that you personally dropped never did a follow up that you would drop them not all the people that i drug you just back away and let them  head implicitly of that busty like what happened here with this is not how he was identifying richie now i submit there was no evidence cited by the district  support her finding of some organic factor or somewhat modest amount of intoxication under those circumstances there was no evidence to support or find these the defendants do not cite any they do not even cite those tending and it was defeated a private party he was not on duty when this happened to him he was off duty he was attending a christmas party thrown by the lawyers not by thrown by any government official or anything like that so we respectfully submit that under the circumstances based on preponderance of the evidence you take feldman you take the fact that casey said who was another narcotics agent that what happened to feldman what