approach”); New Vista, 719 F.3d at 220, 2013 WL 2099742, at *12 (same). 7 . ”[I]f Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 2. 8 . The Supreme Court also applied this functional approach in a case testing the meaning of the Pocket Veto Clause. See The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. at 680, 49 S.Ct. 463. There, in considering whether the Senate was available to receive a bill from the President for the purposes of the Pocket Veto Clause, the Court eschewed a myopic focus on Congress's procedural status in favor of an analysis of the underlying purpose of the clause. See id. (<HOLDING>). By ignoring procedural technicalities, the
holding in a title vii case that it was within the purview of the courts discretion to determine whether or not the actual time expended by an additional attorney was reasonable holding that it was immaterial to whether the senate had adjourned if it was a final adjournment or an interim adjournment and instead considering whether the adjournment prevents the president from returning the bill to the house in which it originated within the time allowed recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest holding that an indefinite adjournment of the  341a creditors meeting would nullify the thirtyday requirement in rule 4003b holding that when determining prejudice under the objective test relevant considerations include 1 whether the extrinsic evidence was received by the jury and the manner in which it was received 2 whether it was available to the jury for a lengthy period of time 3 whether it was discussed and considered extensively by the jury 4 whether it was introduced before a jury verdict was reached and if so at what point during the deliberations and 5 whether it was reasonably likely to affect the verdict considering the strength of the governments case and whether the governments case outweighed any possible prejudice caused by the extrinsic evidence