MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
world something in terms of undertaking their representation on the client is in the manner i'm cracking up taking the time it would take and it can be more than a minute to look at the
that you wanted with respect to a claim under a third scene pay period contract and you said i don't have any smear the director of nursing chair it was the director of community resources and they needed the executive team so these are people who chose the right thing to very difficult circumstances these are the people who would take pay cuts  with the availability of copier isn't computers who knows what happened and what we're looking at is three sets of documents that is consistent with itself and have the two  there was no plane into it there were high tracks and really that left with copies of documents that are dubious what are we supposed to do with the trial who took the evidence that was presented to him there was testimony  and that's what they believe that's what the separation agreement says to do it effectively terminated at that point because we're seeing that when we were in church nader says that conversations about twenty six weeks were nat supported by any consideration he should just ignore him but there was consideration we should look at the consideration that was no scott tracks and now outside through the corners of the contract says the purpose of the major cause is that previous conversations and previous
so you're saying they are essentially you retain the court retain jurisdiction because if you're alleging fraud correct then you're aware of the more recent cases castleberry being one of them and there's a occurred right and where in the situation today with the state of the law being ferried clarify that jurisdiction is by virtue of subject matter and personal
into it a gentlemen's agreement a handshake agreement and read attempt to proceed if they could and that one of the reasons why the question is if they could is because there was a to financing contingency provision any situation the point is that you ran to achieve that it was said that that would bring them out some sort of resolution or whatever the it is that you had in this particular instance it seems to  be the separation of their interests you know regardless of whether it was the facts in this case or it and some other commercial transaction where you have a memorandum of understanding persons are going to take certain transaction are there other mortgages insists on th comparable a exclusively within the province of the trier of fact to be determined by assessing the individual circumstances surrounding the party's actions so the fact is this is already read to he's testified that he  problem is is that at least for the plaintiffs is that the reason why would you answer them is because the end agreement itself is ambiguous and that's the position that we've maintained from the get go in this was had to raise his credibility in reaching that conclusion to dismiss say his efforts to do so as to conclude  that he bears not a credible witness that his efforts but his testimony but he did not that the questions financial institutions and it was true that he was not going to get financing based upon the structure of the company was not a
i never heard such a thing but it happened in this case they listen very carefully to the instructions and when we went to the jury room they read those instructions to get those instructions down now to pass the instructions around those instructions read the written word like i and
three part is those forms mail us wants to proceed with you an appeal of the decision of the commission to the circuit court of county involving an award of benefits so a very nice older lady could with the situation that we had i mean you know we don't allow the appeal to proceed but are we saying that an out of business employer has no access to the courts even in a situation even in a situation court case and then a affidavit indicated that he made in the search of the several states secretary of state's office to determine or to obtain an address there's fifty states i don't know hole in east so several states are clearly that to me that doesn't strike me as an exhaustive search there's also no indication that the ever attempted to find the corporators no indication that the upper attempted to find any officers no indication that they ever attempted to find any directors to determine if the business wasn't still in existence of the purchase by somebody else or whether someone was given any  ity to impose wind down their business if indeed the arado as we don't really know that they are not those but even if they were we should not be excused from following the clear statutory islet is it a problem that the out of business company or is it a problem that we can't find with them i mean i'm not sure the situs of the company makes a great deal of difference i mean we've and it's out of business right i don't know how they arrived at that conclusion i can't see that they are can say that they're not they have no idea now might be but are you really a little bit in issue to to impose its own fill in the blanks if you will of what may be done when the legislature itself did not you don't did not place that into the legislation i think that there was  carve out some exception ignaz thing that really isn't the case here but we think in this case we should allow that were do we draw the line it doesn't open it up to all sorts of potential abuses
the fire department the last couple weeks of the last three more weeks just an awareness issue when they're out of call of what is a code violation so that we can use their routes and be on the ground to see things to get us to make our data more productive and to have that extra  generate by nature of what they are reinspection so we we really put together a pretty strict schedule for these guys and having an actual person just really does push up kind of a ballpark number here how many and again i you know i could come and probably make the argument that if we were allowed to over time that we could get out there and find those and those are extremely expensive and without permits and working with them in a stop or borders those are just those two tickets right there which  week and they get a monday off that kind of thing i think it is the staffing levels that we have right now the demands we have throughout the week with our inspections around those complaints and things like that i don't know how to get better in the week to say i think i can look at that certainly and i tricity also has a what they call a roof rental component to it which will provide the city cash for utilization of the roof and then also offer us a discount on the and value things like this there are experts in the industry with a lot of background experience sometimes are usually more than we might have a specific area and so working on it is i believe the planting and a role which we just completed are to over and then for twenty thirteen and it will again about to trees each time we received a grant from new york state department census has us at sixty six thousand people we now qualify as a big city wound the terms of the urban forestry community grant program so that means that we're eligible for a lot of funding that we can request for gran me other question
to holmes say there is a additional issue here the following is from her interest calculation i would indicate to the court that i don't intend to argue that it's i think where a motion for summary judgment is a problem in the ongoing discovery what do you do i think first of all i think there was more than ample evidence to survive summary judgment material that was presented twenty fourth two thousand page so four and a half years after the case had been filed initially the day after there was a court order  work they did their work in their compassion the same way i deserve every other contractor in the field doing there's nothing incorrect about what they did so we got testimony in from people in the industry  that matter in this case that's going to show no reason why they didn't get an expert earlier why they didn't come in on a motion to continue to judge that should be granted and they put forth didn't really buy that no reason whatsoever other than what we think
that the claims which describe rooms in general with regard to the inner surface of the washing machine vasquez were not supported by the specification because the specification was limited to drop shaped groups we believe that the district court erred that conclusion and holding the claims invalid and that this court should reverse first of all  warning which the council of the office are college described as boilerplate but a fair reading of that says this is a description of preferred and bought and we intend to be bothered by what comes afterwards not if i if i could ask about a passage in the specification in the summary of the invention section there's a reference to a couple of the objectives of the invention the are actually in that and then there's that they say that these and other objects are the president mentioned are accomplished by providing a molding apparatus comprising a mold core which is fixed at one end and includes teared up drop shaped projections and for that's that's the guts of the  statement it sounds like a pretty conclusive statement that this is the this is the characterization of the invention and then on the net lines in the two previous paragraphs which are the objects tended to be achieved elimination of the net lines of both tied to the pier drop shaped groups why isn't it fair for the district court to said ok you've defined the scope of your invention in the discussion the scope of your it has been proposed to mold a plastic washing machine basket as a unitary structure and then perforate the holes during a subsequent manufactured step this method leaves burrs and sharp edges blah blah blah  bruce to be solved why haven't you just disclaimed to the very thing that you claim in claim twenty five which you've criticized the prior art which has the holes punctured in the  is it is there now float around the core without creating yes which would be inherently formed without the presence of the teardrop shaped projection doesn't that why am i not saying that this i'm reading that the which would be inherent would would inherently be formed without the presence of the tear shaped projection with suggests that if you don't have the tear shape teardrop shape productions you're going to get the n the reason why there's no snake snagging but that doesn't that doesn't address mind you you don't have is there any place in the specification that you describe how to is to avoid necklines and the way the invention of voice netminders teardrop shaped groups how can you come in later and say well we clean anything there look that that shows up that doesn't have nevermind which is effectively what your new claim correct that's probably why isn't there at least i'm not in terms of expert opinion to throw this club with something you've got to ask a difficult issue i think a difficult question as the district court probably concluded applying the directly addressed by the question of whether the broader claims read on preexisting prior why why are we presented with this rather these written description case
fees at the time he bought the harley davidson yes
is a mandate from the general that prohibits this from having dissipating and the activity has a real possibility of serious injury so if you had to jump off you should avoid the activity that presents a real possibility of serious injury this is a physical training program for a recluse if that's to be taken literally in almost any type of physical activity presents the real possibility of serious injury function exception answers that no undoubtedly the marine corps themselves have an incentive to ensure that your encounter crews are not injured and they can take their own actions to make sure that that's the case in fact again it's goal of the leadership program to reduce attrition and have recruits enter the marines motivated committed and physically prepared to do it so that his injuries are granted regrettable that the terrible conduct answers very clearly the discretionary option exception applies and he cannot sue the united states in a negligence action
review three first one is a site plan site plan for cross routes counseling office building that's right across the street here it's the clean i submitted that building to come down and they're proposing to build a seventeen down square foot office building right across street here so that plan has been submitted and that's a site plan so that's strictly early in a commission or kind of  here's the old long line of the old lot line in the old lot line are there widening out these three lots creating more with on the last to accommodate homes that benjamin marcus has planned for with partners to see has been executed agreement to purchase one point five acres of property at one seventeen maple lane it's currently owned by the martha de linda state lot both lot of point seven four point seven five acres meeting minimum lot size requirement for this or dash one a single family residential zoning district the existing structures which are in this area here and they all be raised to build two new homes here the property has access to call public until the utilities this is a public sanitary sewer line that runs to the property other create there's a point open space in this case they're creating one new law it's currently one point five three acres so they're creating one new model so that triggers the point zero seven acre addition there is no open space on any adjoining properties to may be attached to any time we're dealing with an open space obligation the township can require the dedication of lane but we cannot require that they pay a fee in lieu of space obligations staff recommending we waive the point recommend counts two counts of that we waive point seven acre open space obligation ordinance so there's this is one of the air is one of the areas where they get away with not having to pay traffic impact or occur most other developments all new developments require that they pay traffic impact the all commercial developments required traffic impact the most new developments are paying the traffic impact so simple to lot subdivision here in this case you think you know it still looks like a monument sign in some respects you're on nineteen but just to get it out level you need some type of postings i think it's probably weeks or requirements of
and i understand that under under the under the
i take it the government's case is based upon the face value so right district court found the value was over one thousand dollars so how do we set aside that finding what is your about the district court's analysis which indicates that we need to set aside that priming  reverse these convictions  there was some evidence about whether or not you can find out how much it cost the post office by the value of the people and what we do with that evidence does act get ever get to face value there counts five and six were misdemeanor counts so they aren't before so those are and appeal we have one through four which are felony counts where those counts are those counts charged by the government both those felonies and misdemeanors so we would by your by your argument then we would reverse those convictions this document was a misdemeanor news convicted to the value of these items to the defendant and then later on i'm page six and he talks about the defendant's motive as being instruct to the value is strikes me that that's problematic is that justifiable to use those kinds of pieces of evidence to determine the face value
legal authority which would create an exception to that regulation and in our view this alone should be enough for the court to find no abuse of discretion but even if the court looks to equity rather than the law he's not alleging any error by the board at all he was alleging a mistake by a third party and i ask you questions to something about the case that seems a little wacky to me in may of two thousand and three he makes a motion to stay deportation which t or later they would make a decision and he has that responsibility to be checking to see if the appeal has been decided he has not made any statement that he ever checked in this way so  aggravated felony people who have been convicted of aggravated felonies would be eligible as petitioners telling you i have great doubts about that saying that congress has been very negative about those convicted of aggravated fel felonies and i will tell you that i certainly believe that that the petitioner here there's no question that he was convicted of an aggravated felony and he has no you know there's no argument that in terms of him being an aggravated felony i mean that's that's really clear he only raised two issues about that at any point before the board and of course to have raised anything to the court subsequently he would have had  that his denial of a motion to terminate was was ronnie just because he didn't have a firearms conviction this related to something that had already been fixed he originally had been charged  incorrectly he was guilty of assault by force to commit great bodily injury that's right but apparently it was something out with a firearm that was wrong and that was later amended the charges were amended and that was fixed before the immigration judge entered his decision so there's no basis to that that's not a problem the the other thing in his brief to the board he had one issue and that was that he was not an aggravated felon because he had not been sentenced to a year or more this involves a provision of a crime of violence and you have to have a sentence of a year or more and he was saying because the county jail modifiable in part to residential treatment but that wasn't a year but that's totally wrong and it has to be wrong because under both the statute and precedent of this court an extra total security prison in still counts towards the sentence there is no question about it so he has no way to say that this is not an have actual document before me but it must be in the record  my recollection from very very early this morning is that i went to seventeen the down towards the bottom portion of that is that the court would identify  two six seven six fingers ashcroft zero three one six one four seven simha versus federal reserve bank and zero three one six nine eight eight strike over says federal express one term disability plan these cases are submitted on the briefs at th thanks case to be argued is zero three one six one seven zero glen davis versus the city of oakland this is been calendared for twenty minutes we've conferred we asked if council would do it in ten minutes per side we'd appreciate it
and we're here to decide whether a misdemeanor conviction from california for what's commonly known as a statutory rape could be considered or is considered a consider the fact that might be no sexual act between consenting people if the process were bad word if the minor is under age because the minor under age cannot give consent so you know if you're going to have is the guideline definition taking us back to the statute eight u s code eleven zero one a forty three and forty three says the term aggravated felony make up words means to assume that congress is using a word other than so far off its usual meaning and then it's one thing to say well instead of a year and a day which is the usual will make a year that maybe congress can rea term of art it's what congress said that it means and so without limitation on the period sexual abuse of a minor because of the kind of consequences are involved it was classified with these other very major the bottom line is that this is what they told us it means and this is what i believe particularly with violet regularly and bank this quarter is bound to accept that for forty three a for sexual abuse of a minor  would point out that aside from that the issue of whether a misdemeanor can be an aggravated felony the defendant this case has not covered or objected to the application forty three a day is not disputed this is one of those hypotheticals which is difficult because what we're dealing with sexual abuse of a minor by its very nature suggests something which society finds is very significant misbehav question well it did in effect what you were suggesting would be permissible move that by one day is was it a crime which was susceptible to sentence of twelve months which least one year twelve months at least one year so we need so what do we find in section sixteen we acknowledge that the statutory seduction about a statute does not have an element of violence morning michael my dad appearing for the
counsel to get the file i mean i i tried to get the file from the other counsel but he refused to give me the file i mean one of the critical issues that i have is whether or not he which are meant to ensure that this factual record is available that is the requirement for an affidavit and the requirement to notify counsel the third lozada requirement a should have before him or her enough of a record to determine whether or not this is fraudulent or whether they should go ahead with the hearing and but those are those strict requirements we've said that so long as what we exceptions but certainly the strictly compliance is not the rule of the ninth circuit so then you move up to the next paragraph and it said responded did not present any evidence that his former counsel was a form of the allegations now any evidence means none now the letter that went to the bar says c c salazar now clearly if if if we were doing this the way we  as judges judges scanlan's question pointed out there would be some affidavit in service or something indicated other than a so you see that it that he got it but that isn't a question i'm focusing on  whom the allegations of impropriety are ineffectiveness are being made notice you must give them that person an opportunity to be heard and third you must attach to your motion that attorney's response to the allegations if the attorney refuses to respond to the allegations then a report to that effect should be attached and you answer my question it says there was not any evidence yes your honor  clearly he was anticipating a hearing on the merits at which mr reyes would be there also it appears that he was castigated by the immigration judge for waiting until the day of the hearing to file the motion to withdraw his