MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
sentenced in the district court before blakely vs washington and was applied the rule in blakely was applied to the federal sentencing guidelines by this court's decision in the united states versus about well first of all i don't believe there was any exercise of discretion no you very clearly said i know one of this question the go down i'm not doing it well he actually ruled on the government's motion which would have given him discretion to depart downward there was an order in or by judge burgess reassigning the case to himself this court didn't say a different judge remanded to the district court and i spoke with mr freeman the attorney for the government before and i spoke with the federal public defender on friday because i have another case coming back from this court which is a judge handed pace in its material to the decision whether to seek re sentencing who the judge would be and we simply don't know because it believe that if we did get judge tanner again that if this court said you know you should apply the factors and five k one point one thirty five fifty three which i realize thirty five fifty three a which talks about background the mother that selling him for thirty thousand dollars essentially that kind of stuff this seems to me extraordinary and very well could make a difference if the judge was sentencing under an advisory system  probability that there could be a different sentence and you also decide to exercise her discretion you can send it for a recent incident i think the only reason we would be in the merino hernandez it's applied mandatorily to them and he has the fanfan error which this court discussed in marino hernandez because what if it was seventy five months then it probably would have been seventy five but with knowing that he had just gresham to depart downward for previously prohibited reasons that seem exhibited in mr clarke's case i will only there is a reasonable probability that when you go through thirty five fifty three day from consideration and length of the sentence i really think when you put those things together there is a reasonable probability of a different more lenient sentence  months now the government actually asked for forty eight months judge turner had three different recommendations in front of him defense asked for twenty four months the government asked for forty eight and probation asked for sixty so everyone was recommending extensions was twenty four months and just general knew we had the question is is when i just read judge denies that discretionary just went where there was a discretionary decision not to depart down words and it's based on no obvious consideration of the relevant policy
right he thought he was arriving early but in fact it was he had been scheduled at eight o'clock instead of nine because an innocent mistake on third very unfortunate mistake for him was sort of removed his wife his mother was explanation for this no evidence that he was ever personally notified of the time will be on the hearing if you truly who represented him his client does get there the client does get there it's shocking that the board didn't go grab the trench or final something so if you look at it in terms of whether the outcome was the road or played a
minor injury or was there a serious injury to forty minutes she had to do various things around the house and the inference to be drawn from those facts is disputed in the inference that i would propose is that the officer just grew frustrated against against the car and again the focus on qualified immunity though is what the officers reasonable belief under the circumstances i confront of the officer that rogers twenty twenty hindsight the officers government doesn't have to be perfect
present himself but one of the things that judges tell us is important at the trial court level is the defendant's expression of remorse that a very emotional a very thought provoking type of presentation that needs consideration and he didn't really have that chance here the other thing that he did not have was the guiding hand of counsel because that detail i didn't ask for that but it sounds like the case was called in the morning and it really didn't start till noon and that was probably to allow counsel to arrive at the courthouse this is a courthouse  write judge also said there i know what i think i need to know about your case but how could he he did not know what he didn't know and he didn't allow mr chapman to bring in court that day if he had an extension he did say on the record i had letters i had family support i had things i wanted to tell the court one thing the commonwealth comments on i mean the influence the outcome then we have to have a new hearing and here we have an opportunity for a lower sentence mr chapman was facing forty years he was sentenced to sixteen years the guidelines started fifteen i think they went to nineteen but the plea agreement allowed him to ask for less ask for a hundred forty four months which is twelve years but there's nothing in the plea agreement that would prevent the judge from going where every man but if the court now is inclined to assign it to different counts different that court that would be i request as well time to prepare for sentencing and controversial decision is there any dispute that the defendant did not know that sentencing was that they well obviously he knew enough to ask him to prepare a letter that got filed with the with the request for the continuance and the need to move the sentencing forward i actually think it shows some sensitivity and the need to announce those rights rather than i've been a judge that was cavalier or terribly  but never asks do you understand the precentor there's no conversation i think the judge did question the defendant about whether he had repeated the pre sentence report i think that's why we have counsel there's no i'm not kidding you i some point that he was given out an opportunity to consult with counsel and then just record yesterday after that opportunity to consult with counsel if he had in fact reviewed it with report and identified his review of the section thirty five fifty three a factors and i believe read in that context and the district court was stating that his review resulted in that being the appropriate sentence certain that that's where the defendant consistently said that from the from the moment the second started but the district court obviously about believe that the defendant had reviewed were the record him or the pre sentence report  thing is taking up with his to relying on them as actual you know authority issued by this court
but i'm afraid that well he arranged for the arrest of mr bellew after mr blewitt was paroled into the united states by the department and was employed and he was present he had to if you had to convince his guards to defect with them in order to escape from them he won't carry that gun in the first months and after that he became this is the kind of person we would we want to encourage to apply to such groups because of their ability to reason and convince terrorists from the on the one hand it's the decision of the i j a that i think went too far in this case and the other one is that the burn on his leg indicates past torture and i think th at least there was another situation i've had here where i got well actually a couple more remounts but one chinese situation that i want to try this out with i believe the chinese government will be receptive and i'm sure they're in the fact he's gone you know he's not in the united states right so in the beginning so they didn't consider him a danger ok he was found to be a terrorist within the meaning of the statute so for that we don't have jurisdiction to review their finding do we are doing now you yes you have jurisdiction over this case because what you are reviewing i well if you're in eligible for a form of relief under the statute one could i think characterize that as a lack of jurisdiction but not really this is not already been deported again i think you're correct your honor the statute speaks to the power of the attorney general to remove somebody to a particular destination in this case algeria it's not clear where he is outside the united states it merely the strains the para the attorney general to remove him to that destination it does not necessarily because in fact this person was held in this terrorist organization against his will and skate well the record establishes that taking his testimony that for four months he was a voluntary member full fledged member of the cia said you don't go to camp in the mountains with the g i a unless you're a full member he carried a weapon he was armed he carried when the statute does not i dressed there's no temporal limitation in terms of when the terrorist activity occurred if he engaged in terrorist activity equivalent depending on which section of the statute you're looking at because for example in the asylum statute congress provided a waiver in one respect that is relates to representatives of organizations the attorney general in his discretion finds there are not reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the national security so in that respect congress  membership so there are executive branch waivers available under the statute ok thank you at work before his judgment ever reached the attorney of record by the time the attorney had reached the judgment he was already in custody is that significant i find that there is a kind of a  i find that backwards or there is something wrong there that  i find that the judge is exaggerating his his danger in the very fact that he cites to support his finding that he's likely to engage in terrorist activities
it please the court counsel my name is one of the golden i represent anything from boy the issue here is whether an amended judgment is necessary to start the statute of limitations clock for twenty to fifty five tuition where an underlying conviction on multiple counts is reversed on some counts on appeal and affirmed on some counts on appeal and then the case very skinner is kind of interesting to me there was a little more going on when he came back and we got in the excerpts of record if you go back in the district court record it's sort of like ok well he came just back on the again part of it and we get rid of that well he was also involved as to pretty serious negotiations for immunity on a shoot out that he got in and with mr kieser whatever and you know i got to know that if he's portrayed as being this sort of and winning person that all that this comes back at his hearing is that they dismissed the gun charges stands out to you anymore but there's a whole lot more going on here in terms of what he's doing relative to you know houston goetia and this whole deal for immunity to testify in this other trial and then he gets rid of the gun charges and then he still has the sentence on the other and you know why if he was unhappy with what happened there why didn't he you know i feel that right there those are different cases than this one well you know i mean i can certainly see why as this now because you wouldn't want to bring out all else that he has going on in his life but there was you know it wasn't just like this was single validated documents and that's reflected in the judgment in this case where it says under the heading imprisonment specifically that the defendants here by committed to the custody of the united states bureau of prisons to be in prison for a term of seven hundred twenty months the only indication of how bad it is to be broken down is under the statement of reasons but one of the things that i was thinking about as i was preparing for argument is the fact that the bureau of prisons it's currently operating under that judgment and it certainly does not have any authority or jurisdiction to rewrite that judgment to release to strike a deal and they dismissed the county in return for his cooperation right and then they didn't finish the job by entering the amount of judgement so who's responsible then for not ensuring that in a minute you and as interviewer but just record and every party activist just that point was that was the final judgment
the electrical propulsion system on the site is a new design that we had to come up with specifically for those who are just frankly to die or use here at the other side help balance the bike the rear hub motor supplies of the power more control over here helps get the most power from the batteries and from the because because internal combustion vehicles gas vehicles are will be replaced by something in the future the letter proportion is taking over the prius the leaf the test lot of everyone knows about electric cars and that's great but not everyone wants to buy a new car entirely new machine to take up space in our garage to require casts absolutely we do custom built so most of our bikes in the shop right now are by frame legal and we keep them that way but we would be happy to build you a bicycle require a license plate and a and turn many people don't know this is going to be a little dry public policy right now requires a speed of twenty miles an hour for a bicycle anything over that without pedaling just a throttle of twenty miles an hour is a scooter from twenty miles an hour to thirty two miles an hour is a scooter and you need a license plate frame and turn signals but not an endorsement for your motorcycle after thirty two miles an hour without pedaling again just with your t required motorcycle license into this would be perfect for somebody who like with simpler and commutes from here to there and everywhere so you could you just bicycle everywhere all over america all over america exactly on the sidewalks in the bike lanes on bike trails so i ninety for example here in seattle you wouldn't have to be in seattle traffic or in the pileups or backups on i ninety you can just take the bike trail because this is legal in
or the homeowners also allowed the depended to come and go from the garage as he wanted to get some facts about the garage to find it didn't have a key to the garage he just knew that they left one of the doors open and the only item furniture in the must prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas for me to have that expectation and that this expectation was one society it's hard to recognize as reasonable and hear that the defendant status is a prior overnight gas did confer this expectation of privacy on now and only and didn't really implicitly the trial court time there by saying he didn't have authority to consent oh i mean you can talk about it in those terms but it seems like the trial court gentlemanly presence in the area search in the sense that he was in in my teacher the garage that alone cannot confirm a legitimate expectation of privacy in the u s supreme court case minnesota versus carter also i find instructive the only  might have had in the garage would have been recognized as an object to be reasonable one again we're talking about an area into which other than it did not have a key was not permitted to exclude others from the garage he didn't store any personal property that he actually only in the garage on the never slept in the garage the on nature of the his use of the space was limited to a story in school in august in a vacuum cleaner on my mother in the garage owned by a person who no longer
to get out of the political party he said that that was not a credible statement because put that statement into her application you need to get out of the end of those thirty on the record whether they actually said that the immigration judge did find it even then that's not enough for a child because it's a single one single story reference during what was a robbery and after that no one ever but i don't quite understand every word i mean i'm happy to have your view that i very did not question the credibility because i read this somewhat differently when he said there was a huge credibility it on the fact that this was just a simple robbery in effect this counted the testimony your honor if i mean i'm not i'm not sure i agree with that characterization i think benefit of the doubt
as the defendant knowingly expressway in voluntarily waves the right to contest the conviction or the sentence or the application of the sentencing guidelines in any post conviction proceeding including any the court is supposed to use cross references has to use them on the basis of relevant conduct
criminal defense attorney claiming a conflict of interest in refusing to testify john this case is clearly distinguishable from the la plante their opinion that the government have a very relies around the waiver here though this fellow had competent counsel who were devised him in connection with entering into the plea agreement this before us and the argument is that earlier on in the proceedings he was ill advised plea that was set aside the only variance here is that in friday the defendant was not aware of the prior answers here the central was made aware of the  oh that's another problem hugh you have an attorney that first appears out the motion blaming the friend and his new attorney and then when the court schedules whenever the developed that at some point there was so much else who approved the first council and indicated that the offer had to be less than what he  doesn't mean that the attorney couldn't get a better one and i would have accepted that first really if that was the business attorney general and it was a long period of time when his attorney simply didn't communicate with have to assume that that's why the judge suspended the hearing he didn't find whether that happened or not what your argument for saying that if we assume that you still went with because we believe the defendant is not didn't the judge just do it now in this proceeding because apparently very indirect isn't clear i'm also the church might understand that there were not all the necessary elements discretion because it ruled based on what it had before it any actually found that if you don't have all the elements that's what you have to logically conclude in order to entertain this particular claim to its extent i see to be gone in a full fledged hearing
asian and white our versus our make us the court holding in this case was that the statute authorized the board to come to its own conclusion but nevertheless the board time's running let me ask a flip of judge thomas question on the usual how much discretion if you need a board and i understand your position to be that if there is no diagnosis the board has do think that that changes that the legislature ultimately adopted reconfiguring the diagnostic authority from the treatment professional to the board itself was eighty something to tell a very good record of  i think that's correct your honor i'm not sure that i can really count on that what was pro commission which sets forth the criteria for determining whether or not a policy has the force and effect of law and the criteria at instinet is the discretion that the board retain to modify or disregard its policy as the circumstances may require and we know from the policy statements of the board chairs and the board members that the borg hands were tied that they had no
during the preliminary hearing informed in writing that he need not consent to search as this court ruled more than thirty years ago the holiday case that that receiving got written by him is evidence that consent was not worse
this does not compel that conclusion the conclusion that it reaches entirely well grounded in this record based on the facts and the case in this thank you thank you so
figure and thereafter throughout the tour through detention the main question was whether strike that the focus was on his religion and whether you support of the bath party or not it was always a component of the beatings and the torture you were seeing so by chance if you came across this accident they blamed it on him and his religion and his ethnicity became a factor the no petitions would ever make it to the united states likewise if the iraqi government had followed through with its threats in the military the pictures you would be easier he would have died before ever coming also in the record it does reasons were independent and separate from each other the first reason was because you determined that the petitioner did not establish his eligibility with credible testimony and second and separately the immigration judge exercise jail in turkey smuggler to arrive in turkey a smuggler that he paid two thousand dollars and then stayed in turkey for one month i guess is one thing it was just a practical matter i don't quite get that  acceptable because in those regulations that things demonstrate permanent settlement and then there are a couple of exceptions and one of them is that you were fleeing through a whole bunch of other different people will be moving from place to place in order to get here and that that won't preclude them from the spine and claim here your honor let me clarify i'm not proposing that  of pride years regardless of his position in the army for that time it was a five year period it's reasonable to expect someone who was in the military for private years to know the basics about the military and what i have fifty seconds but if i could briefly address that issue this immigration judge determined based on watching the demeanor of the petitioner over several hours of testimony indeed several days and thank you very much