MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
tried found guilty and he was sentenced to thirty years barbara corrections on armed robbery count one two years and fourteen persons and also so if you develop additional probable cause after the initial perfectly appropriate probable cause stop that doesn't allow you to continue on investigation were claiming your i or that yes there is a proper probable cause stop lights out that you should immediately process that to a  well that's a different matter so even if the dog showed up let's say three minutes into the traffic stop that's still improper there had tapes if they were disavowal and they were to a point should have been redacted and that stuff about police officers opinions believe and the police officers there are friends they protect and they service this is in chicago and with those statements made by the police that those statements should have been excluded by his motions in limine way or were directed so that they would be clean no instruction was given of the  you first two are concerned the facts i won't belabor the fact consistently throughout the remainder of the state's argument is that nobody ever raised these issues previously but to counter that the friend dan argued plainer with regard to the canine sniff the court's already noted there's no there's nothing in the record to support defense argument further defend that the references to the statements by mr green are missed inadmissible hearsay well even if there is some error here green testified and the jury was instructed with three seventeen about the greens testimony paragraph eight says that the statements by the police officers are conclusory in nature doesn't hang about redacting there twenty three that instruction was prepared by defense counsel and actually had two lawyers a trial i think and it talks about how our jury should consider green's statements on the tape and that the police officer statements are just opinions and they are not to be considered as substantive evidence so i destruction was given for us three seventeen  argument about the victim narrating the video is based on the sykes case which was someone testifying about a video they did not experience or see in this case the c consent the jury was polled has a group the judge asked them to raise their hands and defense counsel agreed to their there was one your who was accused of sleeping the would be colton green's argument not defendants but in any event i don't see how that's fair if it was there we still have the picture on the video the robbery and mr green had some distinctive tattooing on his neck on his face and neck so there was a positive id of him plus he testified for the state that he would he was the robber and he participated in it along we covered the limiting instruction that the best the best issue that they've raised here the one that has any merit at all is this idea that the when defend that decision chose to represent in this small time robbery he was educated he was articulate he was picking up on the criminal justice system rapidly he did a fair job of representing himself
montana had a state statute in indicating that the legislature directed the executive branch of the government to adopt rules providing for good time for any prisoner that language within the statute make rules and that if i can and maybe that's just kind of gets to the meat of the argument here i think the statute does indicates that the executive branch in this case the department of corrections shall think this is the question and what i would state is that time not only because of the type of interest involved that is an interesting thing and it's shortened by complying with prison regulations but placed on the amount of time they can get but i know your honor i i would have to agree that in so far how the prison actually would have implemented those regulations i mean it please the court my name is diana cook i represent the state of montana department of corrections in this case i believe there are three reasons your honour's why judge nelson w good time rules there is of course liberty interest in good time but that does not translate wholesale to aid and wars for good time rules and i believe your honor that this court does not have jurisdiction over mr coleman for two reasons number one is the question that you brought up your honor about whether he had signed the notice that the other reason is because mr coleman could not possibly earn any good time for work before him before one thousand nine hundred two because he held no job in the prison i don't believe he has standing there if the montana department of corrections were ordered to promulgate rules at this time we don't know what those rules would say we don't know if those rules would give mr brown any good time for the prison employment that he had before good time for any work or activity and they interpret it though the specifics and that they have done consistently and judge nelson  and wolf vs mcdonnell and that is why his opinion was correct and why he said that montana court was correct and he gave proper deference to the montana court to interpret montana law and according to the anti terrorism and effective death penalty  language and and and things of that nature as i recall from the supreme court's case in in roscoe looking at the same statute they found that in fact there was a liberty interest and what they they went on to dismiss the plaintiffs damages based upon a notion of qualified immunity indicating of course that the prison officials had a right to rely upon the decisions t i don't know i don't think that's ever really been adequately decided down in the courts follow their cases were always dismi
and then is representing the defendant have a personal conflict and let's say that he didn't have a conflict he refused to talk to the judge to explain what his role w that mr gordon represented mr heavy weight prior to the trial prior to the time he took he gave testimony in fact according to the record mr heavy on cross examination testified i know all  the very same drug transaction as current client what did he or did not do in preparation for that there were a number of things he could have done preach trial based on his client competence that he got from this other witness and that was that was one conflict what did he do no court could ever figure that that's why the holloway arkansas talk about when you have an actual conflict which dependent even if you didn't the hearing before a judge on the motion to dismiss the court defendant that's an actual conflict you can have an attorney with one hand tied behind its back in representing the client that the husband has a right to a vigorous representation no matter which way  thinking that's standard montreaux that the instruction to the jury to disregard his testimony that they would follow that instruction or act correct so basically the trial at that juncture would be the same trial you would have on retrial i would agree with that you're
than half the telephones in america we have more operators than we ever had before the service means that people make more and more calls mean more operators  doubt you'll still be placing town calls you'll still want us to find unlisted numbers for you or you may need help in an emergency so don't worry you'll find operators just as before when you need them as you can see this big dial looks like the one you have on your new telephone pole you've got a number you want to call first the first thing you do take up your receiver and listen for the dial tone the dial tone is the equipment way of telling you that it's ready to put through you as mr johnson pointed out it's the same as an operator say number please if you don't hear the dial tone within a reasonable time hang up wait a few seconds and then try again as soon as you hear the dial tone and then release it and electrical code message is sent to the automatic equipment in the central office you'll get some idea of what happens over the central office if you'll think of these columns of light as representing the central office dial equipment for example if the first number you dial five  five signals is received at the central office in the third palm of like and so on of course the dial equipment receiving the signals in the central office is quite different from anything we have here on the planet but in any sequence of numbers the number you dial will cause a particular signal to be sent to the dial equipment in the central office let's start at the very beginning and see what you do when you want to call someone first you get the number from your new directory that day the number is four five six seven then pick up your telephone and listen for that i'm home as soon as you hear the dial tone you can start to dial the number you're going to dial tone to the ringing signal that tells you that the telephone at the number you called is ringing the party of this number will hear a clear even the space to ring it sounds like this the ring will continue until the telephone is answered or is no one answers until you hang up when you dial the number on that line is busy you'll hear a signal like this if you hear the busy signal simply hang up and wait a few minutes for the people who are talking on the line to finish and try again when you break your telephone and listen for the dial tone but discover someone else talking on the line and try again after you've waited a reasonable time so if you list your receiver and hear the kicks that indicate someone else on the line is dialing hang up as carefully as possible but no matter how often or when you call always be humor to listen for the dial tone before you start to dial for instance if you should dial eight before hearing the dial tone the equipment may register only well some othe number the reason is really very simple you start to dial before the equipment was ready and so it didn't receive all the electrical signals you tried to send the main thing to remember first look up the number in your new directory second raise your telephone and listen for the dial
percs record to seventy eight i believe  that just because you have a factual dispute doesn't mean that that summary judgment should be denied in this particular case there is more to this rule fifty five requirements are simply making out of this particular factual dispute that alleges them that mr hammond did not file any of the constitution and that's that's our that's our argument it has to be more than just showing that there is somehow this national spirit and i think the statement which is interesting because mr we've pointed out that mr caldwell really has no way of knowing life one agent told another agent when they were searching this he wasn't there but let's assume for the moment we've never challenged the fact that th currency the fifteenth august fifteenth when michael haven't returned to maryland there's no question that at that point investigation was still proceeding and fact the officers alan's violation cost him recoverable damage you didn't go through the growing circuit mediation
understand i was going to ask you because i thought your answer would be supportive so we can file his motion to reopen but when i look at the record in front of us while i feel very comfortable that you want any hardships that have occurred to his family he really didn't answer questions my question is what case do i rely on to suggest that i remain and based on evidence of not before me that the stay wasn't placed under the former law however having asked for reinstatement they didn't ask for a stay and the law has now changed and therefore having not ask deported and this old law which was supposed to have stayed that deportation was not follow through we went under some other law then it worries me so how do i get out of that problem because i can come with i could look at the facts as they said but i have a tough time procedurally and under due process really to have a guy loses state under a change of law and then we don't do anything about it and
his medical history because he had a history of cancer medical records from the moment the university included statements by the insured and his  korea numerous doctors on numerous occasions noted that the insured and daniel ging reported that the insured had collapsed in person's name but they were in fact his records the doctor's from olenda also recorded in there no that point had agreed to provide the information needed to obtain the records from south korea including the name dorion can name the location of a hospital in south korea and the name and phone number of a doctor affect the evidence that the insured and planted both acknowledge that the insured had been diagnosed with cancer and treated for cancer prior to submitting is an insurance application in any event there's no that the insured had collapsed was taken to the hospital and was treated using another person's name and insurance they never said that he had insured ask someone had insurance or did not have insurance in korea  in the district court and therefore forfeited his right to challenge both rulings on appeal on the merits the magistrate judge concluded that there was no substantial justification for the discovery motion discovery motion the court is required to order monetary sanctions if it determines that there's no actual justification for the motion the planet had an opportunity to establish a natural justification he didn't do that in my personal life he was my father like i know him and my brother knows him so that's why the court has to consider this of criminal record which is essential in this case where the person that's what they are the lying on the other saying that the
you on that when we reach the credibility question review the petitioners claim not to be credible i believe the petitioner has addressed each of those points and shown why none of them constitute a basis to find the petitioner not to be credible the court had usurped the the authority of the agency to make factual findings here you have the actual findings have already been made the court is reviewing the record it's not jumping ahead and making new factual findings so i don't think i've been torah prevents the court from considering the credibility filing on the merits saying that the the official claim that he was released because of the international inquiry and in fact there's nothing in the record that shows he ever made that claim they just pulled that out of the air that they claimed that in a condition to coherently testify and to be a just disregards immigration judge is fighting about his demeanor so there's an abundant amount of evidence in this record too that the court can can can make a when the board failed to grant the petition this motion for an extension of time to file this brief and i'd like to address that point first first as indicated in our papers there was a failure to comply with the board's regulation regarding the appears to be the address that was not used and it was used for the notice of the briefing schedule your honor and that was the official address that was placed on file with the board because have to at least try to make a proper of what the prejudice to him would be and there's been no proffer of that in this case in his brief here demonstration of what kind of arguments he would have been able to evidence that his submission of a grief either with the information that he provided to this court or that you provided in his notice for appeal would have resulted in a different result in his proceeding he had numerous opportunities obviously before would we assume that it would come out the same way well it would reiterate again you're out of that i think it's the petitioner's burden to show somehow in the materials that he's proffer that there would have been a different result in a case i'm not sure that he has shown that what he is point address on your form thirty three and that governs the proceedings generally not simply the notice of appeal but you so much concerned about the appeal he's not concerned about anything else generally so if i can at least answer your honor the agency's position is that the alien has not made the appropriate proffer to this court which is his burden to show not that the board would decide the same case the same way if he were given the opportunity to file a thank you thank you and you have some time with me for about what he wished i think that the way the regulations are set up your honor is the the justice department views the proceedings before the immigration judge should be in store for the proceedings before the b i that that the petitioner was required to submit a change of address form because he changed his address from the ashes before the immigration judge is a red herring it has no basis in any regulation it conflicts with the plain language on the on the
earlier in court that he had a fear of returning because as a farmer they were often present by thieves and they were killed when they weren't turning over the money well that's the legal issue was some of these these are connected to the guerrilla and as a political that's the rule that's the situation that's presented as a procedural error not addressed by the board i would agree if there is a procedural error rate in this there was no procedural  process and requires three men ok we agree that that's true and if we agree that mr montez has neither was well dressed by the immigration judge without the presence of counsel knowing that he had counsel are you
would entitle him to remain in the united states after he consulted with an attorney for reason one for instance that he was to be for the first time found out that he could claim more than with some application and testimony in court fisher would submit that that corroborating evidence in this particular case is not warranted however if that was a concern of court and a real concern there was no evidence in the record the fact that he did pull it out himself even though it appears to us to the court on two to six counts hold that that that may be a straightforward question to presume that someone in petitioners position would be not the extent of his fluency in either reading or writing english and i apologize for that but i don't know whether it was a situation where he did he did understand some english and was able to speak some english and write some english or whether he in fact had the benefit of  third party to help him and that third party for whatever reason didn't sign off on the application situation again we're dealing with a lay person who there's no evidence of the record that he has anything really arguing with the legal system in the united states perspective so he should not be held so higher standards so to speak in terms of what to put in asylum application or seem to know just to wrap up that the heart of the claim is that he was threatened and assaulted an attack by members of this clan and that was not disputed and that and there was no finding group and i will smith days comment that his motive or the motive of the persecutors could have been read or personal animosity if we submit to speculation there is evidence on the record that he was persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group this particular  clan fiji is a small island population of approximately seven hundred fifty thousand and there was no evidence of the record as to whether or not it was reasonable practical for fish not to relocate to some of the part of the island specially given the fact that we're talking we're talking about a clannish conflict and whether or not he could have actually relook at it another part of the island feel safe there's no evidence in the record on that
we've got limited issues and we have other cases today that have a waiver a waiver of the government has a sort of waiver here but we don't think that it can properly do so because your points earlier if you get notice and you have the justification right when the district court asks cendant defense counsel if they had reviewed the conditions and had any objection why didn't that wait their right to ask for further j justification for the judge just give them you come here with some report it should have justifications if you're going to get those conditions if you want to latch onto a waiver argument and those things totally distinguish this from camilla block gabriel any of those cases and i think that is strong proof that the commission does not want this to be imposed because they think it's indefensible they think that it is something that cannot be stated with great enough city or that it lacks utilit perceived or an actual error being conducted by the trial court is to give the trial court an opportunity either correct an error if it's been made or more fully explain its decision in that case and that was not done here the defendant indicated that he did not object and exactly the same thing ask house know if there's anything i can do to correct the record so we don't have an error there goes up right and that's really what this is about exactly and that's exactly what the court asked the definity do an of the commission which is evident through its decision to no longer include this condition so armor is therefore distinguishable completely by way of thirty five eighty three d three and a little trouble here that mr sinclair is in jail now reports of him but also a few there on any of these discretionary conditions that were defective in the first place because they were improperly imposed that is certainly going to cross a problem this is why we try to get these things done right in the first place is of a prison sentence there should be separate justification because getting this blanket explanation of sentence really seems to not understand the important distinction between supervision and incarceration so the government now talking about saying how the question of the sentence justification sentence is adequate and that's been fine if you're supervised release is also correctly established or determined through the explanation of sentencing hearing for revocation requires consideration of what the sentence is appropriate now not about what what are the conditions that were previously imposed a year ago six months ago ten years ago so to try to rope in all of that some time earlier and to say that all shows that this is done correctly i think is a reach and i don't find any support for that in the government cited no support for that in the case by this court so if the judge wants to impose sente