“[n]umerous circuits have affirmed that all procedural violations do not establish a denial of free appropriate public education such that reimbursement is warranted, only those violations that are sufficiently harmful and serious. See, e.g., Heather S., 125 F.3d at 1059; Doe by and Through Doe v. Metropolitan Nashville Pub. Sch., 133 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir.1998)(finding that reimbursement may be appropriate for ‘sufficiently serious procedural failures by the school district’ in conducting child-find procedures); Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir.1992) (agreeing that when a school district has ‘egregiously violated the procedural requirements’ of the IDEA, reimbursement may be called for); Doe v. Alabama State Dep’t of Educ., 915 F.2d 651, 662-63 (11th Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>).” Hoffman, 38 F.Supp.2d at 761. Even assuming
holding that proper analysis of procedural violations considers the harm flowing from the violation in assessing whether relief is appropriate holding that reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence describing factors demonstrating procedural error holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from recognizing that fundamental consideration in assessing the propriety of a prosecutors motion to dismiss is whether the motion is made in good faith