MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that more is required that substantial rights must be affected here that that evidence or air must be more than cumulative and must not be tangential appellate contention in this case here that his substantial rights come under the regulations to have the a l j went on to discredit mr wilson's allegations that he had severe chronic fatigue on the grounds that he didn't apparently tell his physician dr must think about his chronic fatigue here that actually discussed the results of the chronic fatigue and all of those positions except for dr none of them considered the combination of chronic fatigue together with his orthopedic problems here and if the doctor this court is held to a lesser case that a non examining evidence of hepatitis c and did not make any finding he had hepatitis c so i don't i don't think so but it's such a long term disease process that it could very well have been your well i contend that there's no real conflict in the evidence here this still leaves a fundamental ambiguity in the case no physician has ever offered an opinion as to the combination of his chronic fatigue together with this hepatitis c and how it affects his ability to perform sedentary work and evaluation of all of the medical evidence all the laboratory tests and determine the combination of his hepatitis c chronic fatigue together with his orthopedic you represent who works and hearing yes your honor i did and you think it's the any functional limitations coming from that impairment that is there's no medical evidence that says if it is viral load reaches a certain level that he therefore can't lift more than twenty pounds he can't stand more than two hours in a day  relegated to sitting in a recliner chair all day long i can't form any duties on the other hand what he sees is a forty two year old man who in front of every single doctor every single doctor describes him as being incredibly well most muscle his muscle thank you thank  that agrees that laboratory tests in the cells are not sufficient to establish a change of circumstances here but we're just arguing that the mr law judge is required to consider all the laboratory evaluation of all of the medical evidence and yet he never made any mention of the results of liver biopsy or hepatitis c or any p c r test results it seems really clear that
on open shelves and found in garbage bags on the floor of the five unit apartment complex in a residential area four units of which were occupied and that  created a likelihood of releasing toxins into the environment the court noted that one of the tenants had complained about the fumes and that the garbage bag found on the basement floor contained highly toxic fumes finally as to the duration of the offense the court noted that keeps admission that the dangerous manufacturing activities have occurred twice over a period of weeks and with the deference there's there's a definitional standa think there wasn't any evidence showing it could be transmitted to other parts of the house they couldn't go through the walls those sec plastic bag probably get in there for quite a while did absolutely what the court said that he didn't do correctly instead of basically reversed what he did on a legal basis that he did not apply the mandatory provisions in the to i don't think that either you don't think that requires the re man is that what i'm hearing you say or do you think that it does require absolutely it does not require remained your honor in the united states view in this apartment the other guy yeah so you don't know one way or the other i don't know but he's one that was actually doing the cooking apparently goo
sighs are going to be enough managed to collect make some accord she said it was fun and so much and i gave it up and why because i'm happiest here on the farm where people are folks and neighbors are just good friends well most of it's on the rocks anyway you know mom he's not bad looking after you that oh but he so you mean to tell me all this was worn them and without putting something back number folks had to learn the same lesson given you'll get it right take that farm of yours or not you say maybe so but you start using it right away in nature intended and pretty soon you'll have a nice piece of productive land again that's major's way work with her and she works with you sounds pretty simple now you put a man on your farm with some gumption with some doggone it some downright love for farming getting to using modern farming methods and it'll pay off just like any well run business well old fat is working you're too hard to shake and i am learning quite a few things about modern farming out say that well what's that girl that's got a little too much one under sail sometimes difficult woman you know make a fool of you every time you're not careful keep that in mind and just keep that in mind so tell me something when you folks put in electricity and piped water out to the barn how come you didn't pipe into this tank too it was between the house and the barn you know oh but we did take it i can but can you i think it over again that i can understand not everything all the way a man feels about his own land farmers i've always wanted to do their best buy the land today we can we have the means a better way of looking at it to hear them i sure hope it clicks well i guess i'll be writing along what's this don't pressure i'm getting a barn are fixed up after all we want this to be something that mr temple remember for a long time  seeing you you know i'll just never understand when i yeah something i'd like to say to you i think mother is calling me and i can hear you too i can hardly wait to hear what you have to say to me
the lingering ambiguities go to the favor of the english and for that reason our looking at is a plain meaning of the section and all it says is whether it was painting and that's all seven if they would have done the most remand during that time period they would have been able eligible for that but they didn't but i don't i think that makes it i think that makes the language of  have to have an appeal pending on that date but on that date your claim must have been denied on the basis of section three or nine which yours was not or whether or not the decision to be but but yes but i'm i want to look at that carefully says your case has to be pending between your appeal have to be pending between february thirteenth and abel first one thousand nine hundred seventy which were cakewalk but it didn't have anything to do with the s came down they basically did found these people had a problem but it was from mexico that was very bad about only reason of this was because we knew at the time we did individual that they were very close again in seven years and that's why we took it because they had a good chance of getting a response have been years it was contemplated i think that's more in line of what the actual law was so i don't think and looking at the government
my name is mark meyer i'm representing dion clay born in the case of the northern district of iowa this is another challenge to the crew offender guidelines  heroin on a particular day in cedar rapids iowa his two prior career offender predicates include conviction and i was for a delivery possession with intent to deliver deliver marijuana and there was an old illinois conviction when he was a young man the what qualifies as a words manufacture import export distribution or dispensing of a controlled substance and i think a reasonable reading of those words together could be transferred it could be sale it's clearly broader than commercial just just to distribute we distribute things to our family and friends all the time and noncommercial in their situation  of the guidelines and also the original purpose of congress that stated it and describing what sort of offenses should be predators and it was clear then that they were talking about drug traffickers you know where we have lots of drug trafficking cases where it doesn't require we're merely giving controlled substance to a friend is by promulgating the the guidelines for controlled substance offenses and so that's that's point number one just based on  significant those would be crimes that would involve presumably a commercial distribution right but he wasn't charged with that cry he was just charged with any case we have case support for that argument for a one point two commentary is broader than the guideline it purported to interpret and therefore not valid well i'm not i don't have four and so we're saying that you can't use the concept that there's no basis in the guidelines apart from the commentary for using relevant conduct in determining how distinguished from offense of conviction for example by incorporating relevant conduct with respect to those of figaro again i i won't belabor that point as well but mendoza figaro is controlling on bonk decision from one thousand nine hundred and five we filed a twenty eight j letter earlier this week talking about some of the developments in the circuits just from my perspective the point on that is that the other the commission lacks a quorum so it's it's sort of in space it's right now but in any event this court should follow mendoza figaro with respect to the argument about a commercial aspect  and as judge grounder noted you know there's all sorts of cases from this circuit i think we only side by what a couple but that a sale a commercial sale is not required but here the defendant would have to do something more than that the defendant would have to show that that the illinois and iowa convictions of which he had were somehow broader than four b one dollar and we just don't that deliberate just comes within the comes within or b one point two for the illinois crime because transfer is just another word for distributor dispense and in that case they  abet or conspiracy to the commentary nonetheless the iowa aiding and abetting statute is broader than the federal definition of aiding and abetting and therefore
was nothing connecting macdonald to tony harris for the twenty years case anyway if this were all the it's not clear whether the court is out they decide that issue because there are no cases where that where the state is actually brought resting when it starts to not provide that kind of connection i mean if they have inside a single one and if you look at all the cases that are out there they tend to involve someone who's testified against it by himself or against friend  defendant or family member someone that if i don't know something actually so that's actually a question that i don't think is by design whether that needs to be proven or not but even if that doesn't need to be proven that's certainly the most evidence there is the key factor here and again we can draw up i explained other reasons that this could have occurred but that's not necessary you can certainly leave it at well all was proven  victim here testify that he was going to testify and tony here in this case this was like two or three months before the case
we will now call the case of enriching incorporated versus the city of fountain valley and i understand that one of the council has not arrived even after being reminded by telephone and of their building we didn't say we didn't insist that they couldn't drop off anywhere on the west side of brooker street and i can give your honour's the citations in the reporter believe it and in the case the cases say that a city is entitle to follow its lawful procedures and making these kinds of decisions so long as there we have a good shot at getting your permit granted if you'll change the drop off point as we suggested this meeting this is three weeks before the city council meeting on november twenty in addition to that mr don't send a letter after that october thirty one meeting and he says i'm not interested basically in going with your suggestion  the october thirty one meeting well that meeting was late and on wednesday on a wednesday afternoon mr priya testified that he had meetings on thursday and his day off was friday and saturday and sunday city hall is closed decision to withdraw from the interactive process was reasonable with that is it your sense that that issue was was teed up properly for the for the jury such that we're dealing with a properly presented factual involved that they thought that the doan's decision to terminate the process could be seen as evidence of bad faith yes so so with i'm just trying to get a sense that we don't have a complete record was that issue squarely presented the question of why the interactive process they all of whose fault it was if you will was that issue of fairly presented to us are one point and in the trial testimony mr don't admit city was in good faith they didn't believe that the city was interested in resubmitting this change to the planning commission or having the city council consider and approve it they were fortune telling if you will or forecasting what the city was going to do before the city had a chance to fall is right you know what i'm getting a sense i was trying to look at the case from their perspective is that this was taking a really long time and there were there were alternative after alternative explored and rejected and then mr according to  versus let artificial think the city must be given an opportunity to make accommodations personal lawful procedures whether or not a an applicant for a permit considers them to be cumbersome denied it this is a case where we have an interactive dialogue continuing after the planning commission made its decision specifically in the context of a meeting with the c e o of the city that is the city manager where he's very specific and he says i'm not the approving authority but i will recommend and i think your chances are good that if huge change or proposal to the hi drop off or the north end within the plaza that we have a good chance of having your permit approved and so that's what makes this case that's why i'm here
francisco with the east shore of the page the study groves of san francisco and the oakland area emphasized the need of communication as the years passed many proposals were made but it for modern science and engineering to overcome almost insurmountable obstacles and make the dream come true hours over san francisco by a realization of the century old is the largest of its kind in the world and crosses nearly two miles of people under a tunnel through the island connected to a cantilever span on the east side which in turn is as concrete was poured into the spaces between them on reaching bedrock the mud was from the cylinders and replaced by a thirty foot concrete steel looking toward san francisco from the center anchorage in the west by two of the five hundred foot towers for the suspension bridge can be seen looking in the opposite direction past the other pair of towers we see the island for the great east and west face sections of the bridge i connected by a tunnel tunnel sixty three feet wide and nearly as high as the largest prospects of tunnel in the  high above the waters of the bay the fabricated steel sections swing into place with infinite kiran precision building the third longest cantilever span in the world the longest in the united states was the  of galvanized wire will be used to bind together two neighboring cities oakland and san francisco this cable will consist of thirty seven sprains each made up of four hundred seventy two and looked around that strand shoe this is repeated until a sufficient number of wires have been laid then the wire is cut and spliced to the beginning and or cable wires are placed on every
twenty six years mr rodriguez has lived here since the age of fourteen when he was brought here with his parents in one thousand nine hundred eighty in the twenty six or more years he lived here he's been convicted of two misdemeanors one fr may be a very great difficulty for him it appears to me that he is ignored the question of is removed ability under eight u s c one two two seven eight two eight two little i he's s so so in effect and you can she didn't last somehow the court was able to waive the waiver that your client is subject to remove ability on the ground that i mention regardless of die either way and in this particular case i really puzzled i mean we what basis do we have at this point to address that issue you know your client can be removed on mr snow challenge to it well my argument would be that it should be free man to determine why there even though there's a finding of child annoyance equating to child abuse which i would submit it's contract law  the court ceremony for the respondent the course you deny the petition for review first petitioners removeable for having been convicted of a crime of child abuse the immigration judge found so and the petitioner didn't appeal that decision to the board  doesn't attach any relevance to aggravated felony or c i n t so so you know the agency is just looking at the criminal actions that's one of the factors well unless or any other questions thank you you thank
three cases from last year from this court it's the district court seems to have just missed the arguments on the supplemental pleading that was filed and what's clear from united states versus coroner is that because a defendant is entitled to only one review of one of their sentences he's entitled to a complete clearer which means that as a baseline that involves an are in fact lower and then they were the originals not insulin and lower even than what the fair sentencing had dead and so the judge should take that into consideration that under shaw under and those are considerations for a judge to take into account the judge doesn't have to reduce his arms of course but what we've seen with in our court it is this judges have generally been receptive to these arguments that are a couple points in the opinion where the district court it's expressed its belief that the mandatory minimum prison term was ten years rather than five and that the minimum supervised release term was eight years rather than and in fact the district court reduced the terms of reference from ten years to eight there's no indication from the record that it wouldn't have reduced to before having considered this argument on the updated statutory penalties please the court to move the bass on behalf of the united states you know there's the just recourse judgment in this case should be affirmed because it should not be required to consider and expressly address this court's decision in ruth in the continuing validity of a defendant's prior ellen only drug conviction in deciding the st step back motion and the reason for that there are certainly four reasons for that the st and primary one is that unlike this court's decisions in the shaw corner in hudson the st step act which this court has said is the authorizing vehicle for considering reduction in sentence expressly provides that the changes to what changes to d our prior qualifying convictions are not retroactive and that is essentially what the defendant is requesting the court district court to be required to do
good morning writers may please the court my name is keep those in dr i'm from the office of the federal public defender in arizona and i represent the defendant in this case least sirrah martina's the parties before the court this morning agree that this case should be remanded for resentencing because in light of a recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines the sentencing judge should have awarded a three level downward adjustment to the offense level based on mr sierra's acceptance of responsibility well based upon the change in the statutory complex of how we look at that the government probably made their determination on ai and valid basis would you agree that the government has conceded that and i do agree your are saying and under this court's case law the change in the guidelines this retroactive to this case right so mr c r contends that remand in this case based on the third point issue alone would be the most expeditious resolution of this appeal and i have three reasons for that that contention first of all re sentencing would take place on an open proceed from there practically speaking mistress you're only has seven months to remain on the sentence if you were to get the third point for acceptance and with the amount of time that it would take here today so you did approach them with the idea that the a list just dismissed as the ill gotten away i said no yes i i approached the u s attorney's office with the idea of just remanding based solely on the third point i you the government would not sign anything about an agreement on the third on the third or part of the first issue so you had to go forward with this your honor i possible and that's why that's why you know so it is we're here today ok and then you can see that the california murder statute asked for more time to file a petition for rehearing and as long as as long as i believe rios is still active it's it's possible that mr sierra could could make something out of a potential change in the law that could come out of th court to rule on the likability of the sixteen that one has spent to prevent any future appeal and for purposes of judicial economy those cases are even reviews before this court so it isn't the final resolution of those issues all involved in the two cases that counsel talked was well your honor because we're really just determining whether the attempted murder conviction is a crime of violence and those  you want to say anything else counsel  the challenge mr mr sierra has brought in his briefs may be foreclosed there could be other ways that mr sierra could challenge the sixteen level one has been based on the nature of the california statute issue and for your argument ma'am we will then submit case twelve one zero one five two