MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
had pressured speech and we had another lay witness that they l j called to clarify some of the testimony that was the woman named charity making spirit who's the program coordinator of the confidence cl also testified that jessie bailey was often quick get sidetracked sometimes she talks so fast they couldn't understand her she had a hard time staying focused l j noticed that she had a hard time staying focused i don't believe so your honor and i dressed it in my reply brief and said out her testimony actually she doesn't say anything about the deaths in the family or child care commitments she said she didn't know why you know what families things she says as i recall that she was having some emotional problems i don't remember exactly what they were and then the judge says ok there was a death in a couple of other things in the developing cases but they aren't really just lay witnesses the man on the street these are people who are working with just emotionally disturbed clientele so i think they have a little bit more  i never really know if i should be arguing that claimants credibility or not because they're mentally ill and they don't stay focused and aren't very good witnesses but i think that she said at one point i go into the hospital every year and that was definitely not true at least as far as which is better at a booth but she went quite a number of times and if you look at the times that she went in in ninety four ninety five ninety six you can see that this is spirit was taking account of the life stressors but that seemed to be the the confusion invest x recording she saw he active treatment at least to the extent that the plane was doing as well as she could be  d and it and then p r i and in those four full paragraphs that indicate a significant amount of psychological turmoil tending to experience psychotic symptoms confusion disorientation and than truthful i think that every other piece of that m m p i should be given the same consideration and that a very different decision would be reached  before she was starting to receive treatment from douglas county mental health and then the other doctor didn't give any reasons why he did take a different position from dr drew and he gave no explanation for it so it was versus over in that he's held out a form and he didn't give any written explanation
nine d two only applies to transitional cases by the fact that it was placed not in the immigration nationality act but rather under the transitional rules of ira it was never meant to deal with the ninth circuit opinion in gal alvarez putting aside the merits of the argument you're making which i'd say apart from gallo alvarez is sort of a fair argument there's a case on each side but we're just we're a panel we're not and then bang court and it appears that gallo alvarez rightly or wrongly decided this issue adversely to you it is treated to get nelson suggests that an argument that it may be a victim if it's a dictum i guess we can pass by and get to the merits so we'll look at where we are continuing on with  the the language of three hundred ninety two as i mentioned that provision which the government attempts to utilize to expand the scope of reinstatement is not codified in the ad but rather is only located under the transitional rules  transitional rules of ira as opposed to the permanent rules in the immigration nationality act a very telling it's also important to congressional designation in the title it's a transitional reference and i'm reserving one minute question and this is how we hold the statue permits the ins to do so that's the court's own language and if fact in a footnote later on they refer strange school mentioned to  only in the it's not the single your honor in the case in this case because they they were presented with this very question while the while the it is true that it was voluntary departure and they did remain and of her fact finding issue to the to the district court i would i would disagree because it says very clearly we hold that the statute allows the ins to do so to reinstate that order of deportation it's only it's only just initial in the case that in the small aspect that he voluntarily departed the united states but it's still within the realm of an order of deportation in fact they used the term order hearing they said wait what wait a second you've been previously removed from the united states and then they issued the particular notice to him and in that notice he  doesn't contest anything concerning the reinstatement order but let me just physically my understanding was he shows up at the office for the purposes of pursuing this issue probably in pursuing his eventually said ok and then he followed his adjustment stash based on that and then he put in a long i came in on the ninth of october right for a hearing on what was pending at that time and  they've acknowledged found they didn't need to address them because they had he was only challenging the underlying order of removal i didn't because they didn't have possible form of belief this case does present someone who was challenging application the reinstatement procedure and
can supreme court had decided the case and the police and supreme court has now prior to today i guess just this past week decided that case what's the case comes to us there's no reason to assume that the state would continue you should just be able to move to the district court that ok he waited in appeal didn't mean you can't win faster from us which stage your case the relief for that can be a room full of the stay full stop the relief you want is a ruling about one of the puerto rico supreme court's decision is relevant to the issues in the ca down and it wasn't me it was brother council and he spoke with one before attorneys and the impression that he got when he ended up conversation was that they were going to withdraw  waited a few days i didn't see anything on record and i personally call another the attorney and he told me that they had discussed the night the right call the issue and that they had decided to proceed with the conversation we have no problem with this appeal being withdrawn and they're not going back to the district or i think the issue that was home to this record which was the ruling already done even though there's this little procedure there is still happen but
trial counsel and the prosecutor presents it she was an independent witness they knew that she was in jail at the time of the file and the prosecutor exploded her assets several times and particularly explo i think what you said is correct if we're at the jury trial level one says it's the collateral proceedings and this is a question that came up on the direct appeal which i also handles and that's what one of the judges wanted to know so his question was how can the post conviction
opinion is i recall the for the first time the jury came out and said they were deadlocked what the judge gave was the standard ninth circuit form for the instruction that you give when you send the facts of the liberty is that correct different your opinion but it didn't tell that just to the minority i recall when i was a district judge the dynamite charge that i would give would tell the majority to consider the views of the minority and then it would tell the minority to consider the views of the majority and it would tell each of them to consider whether they might be mistaken and then it would tell them all if we try this one again the next jury won't be any smarter than you are in the evidence won't be any better than what you've h and if you can't make up your mind the the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt can sometimes help you and that was the substance of the dynamite charge and it wasn't given here well i'm no majority you're still asking jurors who are holding out for one side of the other to reexamine their view i'm not complaining that the first talk that was given was there was anything really wrong with that what i am complaining a telling the jury yes you don't get out of here until you reach a  the part of the charge that the first of the fugitive alan charges where is the part that instructs the minority to reexamine its use what words you think  me at that point i would have been more appropriate to ask the questions and find out if that a deadlock if there was one you have to rise in the minority and the majority well i think i think said well we've got to have a line and it would be nice if you would tell us what the line is right that line for a disposition or an opinion that could go your way well i was they were
if someone around here to put the brakes on the place would be a shambles but i love you mom i'm going down to the drive in for you there be back about ten wonder how come mothers know so much mom seems to have a regular built in radar when it comes to finding things out but  a never mind the structure hoppers and us and wild rose up there that make this one look like an airedale but say mike well i don't know promised mama be home early from  with thirty one thirty one i don't have that kind of money do you have that kind of are you serious i don't have that kind of money do you have that kind of money like maybe i better call the hospital you know that would wait john he's probably down at the library o'clock where do you get sick you're going this time of night it's not where we're going after it's where we've been we've just come from a church social oh ok then drive careful tell you guys while you go on in june i want to talk got too long and it's getting late oh that's right we've got to get your home to mother one more crap like that all mop up the street with you ok ok buddy i'm sorry world right now right this very minute more probably thousands if you can germany and switzerland beyond holland in luxembourg ok buddy this is it you know something to open your can of beer but i'm not going to open one for me you know that's right i don't drink her while you guys drink yours oh and we're not going to drink yours either now or do you mean just what i said that's right how how do you like that we drive all the way up here
throughout the morning my name is kim hatley i represent and tonio rodriguez press charter and then and appellant in this criminal case two issues in the appeal one is whether or not the sentence of two hundred thirty considered not clear as to which factors of course consider i can't take the court as far as saying that each factor needs to be listed in the judgment order or the rest of the sentencing hearing but an and lawful the defendant also challenges the reasonability the stephens claiming that the court did not appropriately apply thirty five fifty three he suggested  citations to thirty five fifty three eighty not thirty five if you read one with regards to understanding the trial court's decision in this matter addressing the factors when the that it understood the guidelines to be advisory and would not change the sentence if the court was incorporated its earlier sentence proceeding and findings of fact when we look at that earlier sentence proceeding we see the court made specific statements that the co defendants received a lesser sentence based upon their cooperation that would address thirty five fifty three eighty six that alone would distinguish this case from the arclength a case where there was no citation by the district court to one of the thirty five fifty three factors much less more i would argue that the trial court's discussion in the first sentence proceeding of the base tense level and the enhancement for obstruction of justice yes also compliance with thirty five fifty three eighty one order an application of the guidelines the court wrote court selected this particular point in a sense in guideline range dresses something issues of protection the public support adequate deterrence to criminal conduct guidelines and now later under the advisory guidelines do not object to the district court's failure to articulate specific thirty five fifty three considerations and there is a certain issue before the asked in the application of the guidelines i would have just court when you when you look at a post amalie premium proceeding where we had a second sentencing and you are looking at the district court judge out of california and receive drugs saw the drug records that documented the the receipt of drugs from a correct yes as well as the sentencing proceeding itself polak we have support to the extent the court is defining the sentence imposed based upon those factors believe that
they are applies to by virtue of his plea to count two which necessarily involve an intent to use the car as a weapon to hurt the officer while i think the court had the responsibility intent is a necessary part of that equation i think by any any reasoning whatsoever and i think the best way to view that is by looking at the other cases that have have analyzed and looked at situations like this hernandez stand of all where the defendant the officer that's the only way he could have pled guilty and he pled guilty to right i would i would suggest that because because he was sentenced in excess  pat and i think that that was an approach because this was one individual course of conduct where like began at the border checkpoint and when he was apprehended now the government tries to divide your view isn't it a totally different act to have driven the car at like one mile an hour over the officers term and then deciding not to escape speed you can't do that because it's in a committed only one single act i think that if you start and then the government would say well i think the government serves us in this brief well there was no car chase here and that should be the termini is not necessarily present in crime and therefore in his dismissal his culpability so it doesn't follow from day that use of the dangerous weapon in the smuggling contest should be interpreted to require specific intent deal was concerned with with very specific concerns that were raised in the assault context it was the reasons for being specific content into that language and those reasons really don't apply here train briefly to the double counting argument that the defendant argues that hayes was on point but in that decision the sixth circuit  injuring him careened off and continue hitting a second car injuring the boy inside the car those facts a very different from what you have here where you have the defendant running over a border patrol agents really addresses that enhanced danger flowing from using a weapon in this case an instrument that could be used in the interest weapon or could not depending on the circumstances the other adjustment addressed the different harms the adjustment for assault on an officer addresses the fact that the victim was a government official the stacked or the adjustment for recklessly creating the risk to go get a serious bodily and then the operative adjustment for reckless endangerment during flight was for yet a different rescue and indeed involved yet different that jumps and those were the officers that were put at rest by the flight from the border patrol checkpoint and officer because the officer was a government official was motivated by that and the second one was that the defendant acted knowing that the victim was a government official and that really addresses a different concern which is that we don't want case i would also add your own of that that's not a double counting argument that that's raised in the briefs although it was i believe the type of argument that was at issue in
r potentially qualified for the definition of has there was the money by both of the experts in this case that there was that it looked to me from the record could have determined that and rather you have to read the entire statute let me make reference to particular points but i think you should look at look at sixteen twenty one and if basically talks about the criteria for drop of heat in a bucket full of water versus a bucket full of heat with one drop of water one probably is not toxic or hazardous waste the other one is the potential and the government is h
he was fully expecting the practice to be them as the as it isn't always so this should not be the exception there's nothing in this case we believe that she will be an exception to the way things are done and the w about the underlying facts here your client get nada jacked to the record and recommendation and was perfect way following with pleading guilty on till he learned that charges had been dismissed against a codefendant is that correct that's correct manner and what happened with zach codefendant were affect your client's pleading guilty how on the sites watch final counsel and the district level argue at least in our argument we right under these circumstances excuse me mean he knows whether he's committed the crime and more or not what he was apparently earlier willing to accept that he had committed the crime to plead guilty so there is a differential with a codefendant has nothing to do with whether or not he is guilty is this about sentencing i thin face and on the information was basically a good deal the thing is that we think that the type of fans and the facts are not one of the that there's an understanding in the bar and in the system that it's not accepted until the just record excepts you're just you're just describing what the practice well the understanding not making didn't clear the understanding east that until that order by the board adopting the r n r is and they're on the docket the p has not been accepted i know you make that representation of trying to understand what your evidence is  of the guilty yes down and that's totally contrary to what the magistrate judge told the defendant at the start of the hearing she has the sentencing tray of this transcript of the change position you're taking now it seems to me of the district of quarter rico could reduce the time period if the judge wanted to accept the reporting recommendation which was not objected to there was no reason it couldn't have done several media this problem seems to have been created through some sort of men a straight a practice there one doesn't judge hearing to see what was said at that hearing and the difficulty that the district court is encountering would be passed up to this court now that the government has some responsibility as to how the district of puerto rico operates and it could take steps to ensure that this sort of problem doesn't come through to us why can't you do see integrity of the rules about what happens when there is an objection to the report and recommendation your position also leads  to setting the practice down there of it being merely a recommendation to the district judge in any event do you have
it as we already discussed it doesn't leave ideas of more moral culpability because the i'm still required to know now is that they're taking actions that may help and something but they may help persecution so
good afternoon out errors i think to start if i made by answering a question that was close to defendant's counsel there are some indications in the record that the defendant did in fact wri murders might have been a little bit of an overstatement but i think that the court is referring to the fact that automatic weapons with extended magazines with huge amounts of ammunition are possessed for the purpose of daughter's housing project he asked the court to consider that he tries to be a role model that children look up to him that he is a kind of hero in the community and once you've asked the court to consider that i submit that it's not reasonable for
settlement that allow order or and this court approved it but remaining to the just record that allowed for the district court to reissue the judgment commitment and therefore gives mr march's opportunity
the other concern which is where if we send him back in days then properly convicted of the felony when he then have a significant claim that there you know i i could have had the misdemeanor if things
the petitioner was denied due process because both his removal and not removed proceedings are fundamentally unfair resulting in prejudice with respect to his removal proceedings the immigration judge attacking the the decision of the immigration judge the abuse of discretion for a relief which would be one way of of of phrasing it as but i would i would argue that it's not an abuse of discretion to to to fail to follow the standard the legal standard that the immigration judge was required to follow the factors fifty immigration judge who looks at it and says gee i really don't see any harm here and in fact there is no and you're saying that turns the statute on its head why can't that be characterized as simply a failure of proof on the part of the moral character and instead of of looking to to the evidence of his family as community ties to the united states she looked at it and said oh this is very effective she said this is a this could be a fraud marriage well it's pride marriage and image in the immigration context results in a foreign national not being allowed has any immigration remedy whatsoever over the one where the marriage occurred a month before the wondering about a marriage that was consummated a month before they hear they had a child already at that time and where they were before they were married so his response that was no no it's not a sham marriage security is demand that the i sixty one waiver be submitted to it for adjudication resulted in prejudicial air how can we review that and how can we review that it isn't in incorporated in any kind of final order was by taking over by requesting that the waiver be submitted to it as opposed to be submitted to the immigration judge which is what we've requested we requested the waiver be submitted to the immigration judge and by by demanding that the waiver be submitted with the agency instead of with the immigration judge they took away from this court jurisdiction also somewhat i mean that happens all the time i mean there is the prosecutorial decisions reviewable order that's been exhausted but where it appears that they weren't even interested in granting the the two twelve h waiver where they took it in invent faith as it were to straight well it could it could go either way you could either it could have been adjudicated by the immigration judge and traditionally when they are removed proceedings or exclusion proceedings already predation proceedings exhausted his remedy is to always been a decision and if the decision goes against him to move to reopen before that that would be the only route that i'm aware of
to attempt to murder members of a rival black motorcycle mr bush said his argument that it wasn't clear that the bible motorcycle gang with exclusively black the testimony at the sentencing hearing  waterloo african american upstart biker well it didn't have his permission that was an incredibly improper use of that the district court did not punish the dependent or in abstract