MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
were just up the road from us and in their lives we knew the elton's we knew those persons that came along and made a difference and paint the  today so many people are caught up on rights and you and i both know that there's still you have a responsibility yours is been one and has of the mantle for a long long time within the community yours has been paramount in what we see today and i just got a great progress but all progress the mob's the change over the years we have struggled to make progress and sometimes change we have change said i don't change his progress and almost no change is progress initially the process must k and we look out recently you and i talked and we started traveling from east to west m l k today and name in the different persons that were in business along the way as we been the most diversified street in all sarasota in that it always has been it always has been you know and its character its character in the end the characters on the street today we  didn't always do what sometimes we would think they should do but they would always show up in times of crisis always you know community oh the business people gave the food the drink and everything to make that happen i am remember that the old bush japanese all the way down orange avenue to thirty third street and across to the north side of thirty third street and all the way up to his home it still stan it was if you know you want the first telephones and that's where even the day when there was an operator you could make a call without an operator sarasota because no sarasota other then new town is known for the greedy show nerd however that would never have been a great show on earth without pick her up every morning take her down to the hotel to get his hug and ready to start her day and then they would go and do the filming and she would stay and put in his  we know the families that would take those persons and  so and some of the family members who are dancing with the servicemen and their that that that has a history because it depends upon what area you came out  that was their base and there was no service call for the black support staff with supporting the airbase there a group of closing deactivating the base and i asked them they had already asked for us service man's club and that's with us it was real servicemen club but they asked him could they have that club that building for recreation center for the black community and he said yes and that's how it came about then be asked the city will you do the up keep  original director robert it was here who came to sarasota to visit and stay for a year at most and he became the director the recreation center yeah you know it's amazing and in just this brief few moments that you and i have shared here when we look at this story which is our story your grandparents these persons that made this hundred year would it is presently and what we are now responsible for going forward i want to thank you for your being with me here
respondent continues to be convicted of an aggravated felony and i would find that to be the case it probably would still be an aggravated felony even just for the false financial statement so i could work in the computer relying on very engaged in we can only look to the language of the statute which is still valid penal code section in california and indeed and decide whether there's some sort of conduct which would result in a conviction under upon for the purpose of for curing the execution of the contract for his own benefit would be guilty of a violation under the statute now that it would be a stretch to say that such an act would be denied the motion to reopen for failure to act for failure to actually due diligence the board of immigration appeals decision is a little bit confused because it says that there are two letters connected with our motion to which one did the i can't rely on right because we can't decide this case on a basis other than the same basis that the i get it right that's certainly correct your honor and the minimum we know that the i g relied on the false financial statement can't you know argue it's also clear when you look at the records the whole the also relied on the grand theft auto count you need portions of the record the transcript which referred to earlier it was no longer in dispute the point is the world that's not quite consistent with his earlier statement i didn't get a chance to read the whole thing but going back to the september thirty statement both with grand theft auto he says that  like i would find it if it he probably would still be an aggravated felony even just for the false financial statement because he got two years for that and a lot of things fall both under the fraud and probably but i you by fooling you i have deprived of your property i've done it without any meaningful consent because you've been deprived of the information needed to make informed consent and i've taken your property for the intent with with the intent of deprive you of the incidents of ownership case we're looking at aggravated felony for the purpose of federal sentencing here we have a federal statute under the jurisdiction of the immigration service wouldn't there be some deference to to the administrative
hello i'm i'm on my way to the magical stream skill to kill titan featuring the balding family in tacoma tonight it's among some thirty december sixty that we're on our way right now to buy three sons learn
hello i'm i'm on my way to the magical streaming skill to kill titan featuring the balding family in tacoma tonight it's one seven thirty december sixteenth and that we're on our way right now to buy ok really just on in our family friends for more than thirty years and we've been shopping at magical strings i go to concerts for thirty years thank you our three sons learn
time for your rebuttal i guess i'm much ok and i want everybody to know that justice was right here she's out of the country but she will listen to the tapes of this case and her decision making process
jurisdiction i checked the shepherd i said to the sage and united states versus joe three seventy four for thirty eight fifty one ninth circuit two thousand and four the circuit between the united states attorney's office and myself on the air in here was the deal qualify for rule three for your honest if you if you have the information in the way that you have and we go to the proper first to have that understanding then you can expect this back from the history of the of the particular judge before and the integrity of the u s attorney we're dealing with now in this case the agreement was rule thirty five a drug case but we're not going to what it will thirty five until after you've done your cooperation  case the rule thirty five will be a single mom but because the current concur nature of the sentence is it will apply to both judgments now given we contract jurisdiction and the it made within one year of sentencing it was passed still here in the drug case so why isn't that the end of it because the plea agreement in the prostitution case related back to prosecution case refers to the cost number and i got and i think it was paragraph twelve or thirteen and i'm not and i'm not certain and i sincerely apologize for my inability to good morning may please the court my name is marsha heard and i'm in a usa in the district of my canada station in the phillies office this was not my case below and i've had a bit of difficulty in sorting out the facts but i think the court correct in some of the basic facts and the basic problems in this case the first basic problem is that the rule thirty five motion was filed captioned in both the drug case and the prostitution case there is no are that the defendant agrees to dismiss the appeal of his sentence and agreement about time running concurrently for a portion of that sentence and that any information that he gives during the course of the cooperation in the n in both cases and it is accurate for the court to say that then the withdrawal of that motion the hearing on that motion the order granting the withdrawal of that motion and the motion to reconsider our only captioned and the drug drug case why didn't the government breach the agreement because the motion was filed in both cases and would contemplate as i understood how that the sentences were issued by the corps they were to run concurrently with each other and so any recommendation regarding a rule thirty five would have cut down both the drug and the prostitution case sentences at the same time and one of the fact is the same result that was contemplated but any modification now of after that then he filed a bunch of prostate pleadings indicating there's been a guarantee about his sentence that's not contained within the plea agreement and we simply can't go outside with the plea agreements are in this case that indicate there are no side deals there are no for their agreements about levels of so you intend now to file a motion oh well if we determine we lacked jurisdiction to rule in this present appeal i guess that of the one ruling another rule might be that the district court considered
and kinda makes a decision that it's going to pay it is really only eight dollars an hour to the conclusion that we would have to say there's no jurisdiction
but again in hindle you said i think you would know is that the employer required to cool it or to transport and that was part of the daily routine but then you can tell is nobody here was required to transport anybody around that isn't that important distinction there's no evidence here that the employee driving the van has be continually compensated is there they were driving the vans with a mask oh no not specifically for ri where the assigned work duty is that day that's for the purposes of the employee failing the playback and that's the premises ok now if he goes there it has to go somewhere else and implicit but then he becomes a travelling employee because according to you
shock i'm here i'm half of the original defendant appellant quite frankly it's a very simple case and i don't plan on taking a lot of your time hopefully though i've got one question here you know what it is you can appreciate when you start reading a brief and you see that robert cook was the person who pulled this fellow over i mean we were if we did do a little bit of a double take if if it's a if it is a relative is it distant relative even present but i don't think is the exact opposite of the court's decision in this matter the d v d you could not see a thing my client was driving a truck truck was higher than the normal passenger vehicle the truck was dark on the inside you could not see whether a man or woman was driving the vehicle much less whether or not that individual seats on i think that accurately point is for trained by the d v d states that in my opinion that is the state of the evidence and i think response to that is twofold one you know you'll instruction you don't leave your common sense of the door an individual can't see inside of a dark night it doesn't make him it doesn't seem to me to be physically possible in addition it's not supported by the d v d which the trial court judge stated it's too dark i can't see anything the d v d arguably had the exact same view that the officer had probably a larger view because the officer was driving his vehicle he was executing a ri whereas he's trying to get rescission on the ground that there was a pause for ease the stock based on the seatbelt violation there's a distinction there i'm depending upon how technical you want to be but this court has said that you know you have to allege the grounds  truck and could see that the defendant was not wearing his seat belt and the prosecutor only said that the video was the video from the squad car camera on the night question she didn't say that it compelling the fact that there was a mistake police officer behind him he had a different view of the vehicle you might not have seen the seatbelt violation in any of them the statute says you know he doesn't necessarily have to make th that moment in addition to the fact that you have the observation when you approach the car the defendant still doesn't have a seatbelt on and then he tells the truth or he forgot to put it on so i mean you have all these factors that are operating but to
living in one of the great river valleys of america something went wrong destruction from the sky covers an area of thousand square miles nearly as large as it was a problem of reconstruction reconstruction of land reconstruction of people each group of farmers had a machine each farmer had an equal right to it you know one man alone against the drought and the flood for the first time they were acting together cooperative and even more important a change will begin to come into their thanks for the first time they were thinking in terms of what they could accomplish together by working together with new machinery new methods with a definite plans of follow a plan that embraced them all the farmers work and the land respon ward says when you develop people you have something promising development of people is the first can son of a democracy in school the children learn how to use the things that were built for them i love how the dams w
having to search for different products having to relabel and judged by me well i think perhaps it's quite different from a farmer's situation because you're going to go to the grocery store for whatever it is you're buy so you know your gas cost is the same and your time is approximately the same but i also want to go to the health question because as i understand the affidavit  showed the potentials it's just simply significant of facts that indicate potential risk of cancer which obviously concerns her as a cancer survivor in the same way going back to the avoidance of cost point on judge graber that you started with in addition and i would point the courts to lay a law where the supreme supreme court said you know where there was no evidence of pollutants in the river but they are the members objective here of comes with the cost of finding the right stores that don't carry these products it takes more time and effort for them to avoid this product so it's not about the fact that there are other choices if you look at late law because you know there are things out there we all sort of have different standards stand you now but you know like i remember my mother would send me articles when i was in college don't eat yogurt because it causes cataracts in rats  banker is your best safety has the same meaning for color and of themselves and that seems to be true it's the burden of proof that your friends why not the plain language is different the plain language or one has the burden of this is a type of protein that rapidly digest in the stomach so if you have something that i just between half a minute to two minutes the results of that f d a and the f d a scientists think are going to be pretty readily apparent the reason you want a longer term study is that something doesn't have that sort of immediate effect and the reason you want to have more rats is because if you have a longer term study  survive that you're going to get good data out of all this but all of this just demonstrates that this is one small piece of the overall picture that f d a looked at pictures challenge better for food declarations the maker declaration comes the closest to me and we say as much in our brief i think the issue is that the grape or declaration itself doesn't rely on any evidence that not mine i think you mean th no i mean what if your what if your watch what if your own personal land has polluted water coming on it from a sores and you say well i think that whatever this substance is in the water coming on to my happening she's already eaten and that's more than enough more than the member declaration is there in that case if i can quickly move on to the merits on the convincing evidence standard this isn't our worst safety taken alone something is either safe or it's not and somebody has to prove it by a certain quantum route but it doesn't change the meaning of what is safe and that's what i'm trying to get you to focus and he
including that they have no reasonable doubt that his or her in his intentionally aided and abetted in this particular drug deal that's the very specific argument i'm mak with his brother and another car with his father he follows them for twenty miles they're staying together they're making rapid lane changes everything about this shows that defendant is still doing counter surveillance in this case driver she wasn't there weren't any actions on her part we have an entirely different case here where we have a defendant who was we can see using time from the beginning we can see him showing up here on we can see when courts including this court of them pretty clear they are going to bring an innocent person into a case where you're going to conduct a drug deal you're not going to set up someone who doesn't know and who come provide evidence against you know to believe to the wal mart maybe not only wal mart in the western suburbs that none of this really makes sense no one gets out of the car and goes into the moment instead of a third car pulls up and parks next and that person gets into the car and he leaves the to get into all of the problems which really can show that this is a very well run criminal enterprise the fact the police couldn't get all the messages in this focus well about how that information wasn't really relevant they use it a lot of times show where the defendants are here we knew we had several officers watching they were switching off they were following the defendant so closely that he could pick them up and he apparently never dead they have several people th testimony about how this is a well established tool of the law enforcement car and when he left the car he had this bag with a very substantial amount of drugs at least one point one million dollars worth of drugs clearly they trusted each other as did everyone involved
disability benefits process this is a process which has the procedural requirements set forth throughout regulations in case law and large part because this type of proceeding is i'm like the typical proceeding in that the administrative health form submit it and stationery or the letterhead of a government agency and fill that out accordingly he also filled out a form from the united states department of education as well as a form from the department of motor vehicles all of these eight which in by after the after the expiration of the insurance yes they did and they are looking backwards and giving an opinion that they think he was permanently disabled for to the level of an illness that would have qualified or been deemed medically speaking as a permanent disability and so with the algae needed to do when they all share was confronted with independent evidence from two physicians the two physicians when he substantiate this and other words i understand you're submitting this form but you have anything else that goes with it and i think it's also points out part of the problem with this process these are doctors they get a form from government you know that that indicates it's from various government judges they're not voyeurs they don't necessarily know what the legal standard is and they shouldn't be charged to such they fill out a form is completely is the form a asked and they both did it under penalty of perjury there's no reason whatsoever to think these doctors were being anything other than its credibility or statements then you have to go back and evaluate the record the l g cannot take ambiguous testimony which is clearly what this says there is no way in the world to know how indicating permanent disability for different purposes however that's not the only thing dr langer submitted under penalty of perjury saying there was a permanent disability he also filled out a vocational health statement from a government agency d i'm aware of that and that is exactly why when faced with this type of evidence evidence that indicates a disability and both forms for both actors to make it an inability to work that is exactly why even a l j with an independent duty
they did have the right to do it with an extenuating circumstance because of the fact that it was part of this horrible condition of horrible that he was subject to their street speak to the defendant for a moment explain that he was not in any trouble and then asked him to remove his hands from his pockets for officer safety and it was at that point that the defendant stopped walking and believe that here she was being detained after being asked if he would talk to an officer for a moment which is language of making that choice on the part of it and then after being told that he wasn't in any trouble which again is language order and again this court the state those characterizations in the white house favorable to the state and that's the kind of thing that i want to point out because these are who is were not made in the court below the defense argument and court below was that the officers that we even have the right to approach the defendant in the first place for the purpose of a consensual encounter that that's why these points were not fleshed out in the court below that's why the state was that the defendant here at pierce to be arguing today that the alleged seizure occurred i'd point when observed in my case responded however one wants to characterize that response to the question am i being detained and combination of factors that would cause the reasonable person to believe that he was being detained and none of those factors occurred here on this was a work last made in the context of repeatedly trying to find that he was not being accused of a one point but there are others out one point and another point is back on in the jackson the encounter began with the officer telling the defendant to remove his hands in this case the encounter began with the officer the trial court held in fact if held up there possibly could have held on a different