MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
way and since you don't seem to understand what i'm trying to say to you in part when you call for to quote something in the course you don't leave parts of it out just because you don't think it's important to understand that now i understand that you were well then don't do that when you  of that whatsoever this particular individual was found on the american side of the border possibly with one mile from the border it wasn't a case where he was observed by human eye by binoculars it's not even the more difficult case where there was a sense of alerts running along the border he was found in the united states on american side undisputed no contrary evidence so any of the discussion some of the cases that talk about the government exact same language that we have in this case of the exact same language defense counsel has not intended otherwise it couldn't and he could not contend otherwise relative to the facts relative to official strength for two doctors to cause problems in this very difficulty depending on the facts our official risk rate which we don't have and where an interest is involuntary i guess which we don't have but even the intrigue are different than the founding thesis and the reason for that was voluntarily remaining in the country after an involuntary injury satisfies the statute and while that isn't involved in this particular case the reason why that is important you could have somebody that callously you could have somebody who was thrown across the border and voluntarily you can have somebody who was kidnapped but once they discover their status once they wake up in the kidnappers decide to let him go they're not allowed to then remain in the country indefinitely  northward and work they don't have a free pass because their manner of injury might have been involuntary and that's why the court specifically stated alternatively voluntarily remaining in the country after an involuntary injury satisfies the statute that's an
to make a knowing decision about whether or not to issue a warrant and those statements are material and there is insufficient probable cause of the a misstatement that's willful immaterial yes which ones would you point well the ones that i that i'm aware of that he made and then be made w that mr martinez was insanity in the senate say area and that he sold everything meaning stole the drugs sold all of the drugs that was certainly not true and it was acknowledged that was not true not true that he was in san jose  this was a correct statement and he misstated it again and didn't clarify it i think that shows a world full misstatement of a material fact about whether or not my client sold this or that the quantities of methamphetamine that came from there whether or not it was as to what my client may or may not have done it is not enough there was absolutely no physical evidence connecting my client to go to the lab or to the man absolutely not it was all based on mr  information about the grand jury testimony otherwise but we have a fairly unreliable reporter in mr mantei asshole and so you could describe anyone and state that they have a role and in fact i think there were there were negligent and the circumstances that under which the statements were made and then relayed to the to the magistrate judge were not completely accurate in terms of what the defense counsel just stated it was basically what's happening as the records show is that the other end of the conversation so the government conceded that in fact when we listen to the recordings and compare them to the transcript the things that we believe were there according to mr van tassel statements were not there so the court the government did concede that that happened but even affidavit telling the officer one thing in later you check the whole conversation it turns out that he in part in accurately reported to the l statements from mr van tassel relaying the other half of the conversation he shouldn't have done that but even doing so the court found that that those were not intentional and therefore and even went to the second step which is even if having other questions about the other issues i don't think so thank you very much for your argument  baron or detective meron my concern is that if we allow this type of conduct by officers to take the statements probable witnesses make a recording and then not consult that recording argument is made it was unintentional it was negligent he had the resources to do this rise and to allow him to do it wrong or to allow officers to continually do it long and then say well that's ok because they didn't do it  the opportunity and if you did it if you did it quote negligently i think there's more there than that i mean he had other resources that he could have gone through and what he did was clearly wrong pranks hearing should have been held to determine why this was
and definitely not saying that it has technology it has to use magic words he doesn't have to say the statutory language or any incantation in particular definitely not making that argument psychological diagnosis it contrary to and reasonable application i think it's the unreasonable application that applies in this hill says if there was any have that's how strong evidence is
that happened to him that would be likely to repeat so even his fear of future persecution objective reason assuming past persecution the only document which the immigration judge relied on for their finding  accurate the only document that the judge referred to was the state department country and i think that the letter is taken almost verbatim from the country but as or i'm sorry not the country course the evidence to my by mr garrett j through counsel support his his fears that there are other consequences from having ignored the deportation or good morning my name is joanne chance and i represent the united states attorney general on the case before the court today we respectfully request the court's it and i mr deteriorates petition for review substantial evidence supports the board's in immigration judge's decision denying petitioners asylum withholding cat claims record evidence does not compel a contract conclusion the petition that the fourth deportations that were going on when he when he says they were was not persecution if the immigration judge focused on the well founded fear future persecution of the aliens and didn't make a specific determination regarding whether to put deportation past persecution is a common sense i mean evidence supports the immigration judges determination that the aliens are not creates a well founded fear of future persecution that's the judge did so with our system requiring government to bear the and in other words i don't know how we can decide that the result would have been the same as the burden of proof were reversed and i guess that's my wasn't a well founded fear of future persecution with respect to your honor's question if the court was to remain in the case back with respect to whether or not the judge made a finding of past persecution and whether that shifts the was not properly represented and i think i addressed this in my my my opening brief on the appeal to the board the that the briefs so called grief that was submitted was
produce you making further evidence would be adverse to that party in provides for specific elements of the jury to consider now here instruction has been applied to criminal  what we're not asking to dismiss the case were asking for an adverse inference instruction for the office there's also the reason the probability that the judge would have given the instruction the judge was used clearly bothered by the way it's failure to do videotaping our he said that it he easily could have done so he easily could have it we have to keep in mind here that this is this trial could thirty five months out of iraq without the videotape all we have is that the officers independent recollection of the event forty five months later now he should have videotape this event so we had parent in this case is that feels right with us and that officer waits independent recollection independent subjective recollection from forty five months ago defendant where this adverse inference instruction has been mentioned in criminal cases have been in situations where the evidence in fact existed and the estate either lost or destroyed the at once and that was actually  appellate court's finding or holding an aronsen is that the video existed in the first instance and then was not transfer and similarly in cam a video existed defense counsel had watched the video and strangers driveway at three am it's clear the individuals in the car toxic a that the defendant is removed the officer smells a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant in the office or simply field sobriety test would be unfavor elements that should control and said that's it that is a reason we prudent person of the same or sicko similar circumstances would have offered the evidence if you believed it to be favorable to him that police officer approaching a vehicle and afterward within one or two minutes o
alternative ways of addressing violations of inmates rights and the form of action and the different remedies available depend on whether the claim involves the duration of custody or whether the relief granted the relief thought if granted statutes regarding absence it can actually be a little tricky we have most inmates serving determine its sense of who will be released and their actual release dates are calculated according to formulas that are fairly mechanistically applied things like reflects and i understand the court's concern with that and all i can say on mr lazar's behalf is that this one instance has been the one of greatest concern to the parole board and to mr lazar and the other incidents that often are raised and were raised in the role hearings that the prince to this one mr lazar has argued repeatedly are in fact in direct consequences of this event but the problem is you have the burd show that expungement would affect his chances for her role and it's difficult to meet that burden in mind and record what your honor is in the end i failed to persuade on that point i want to point out that the district court there is no article three case for controversy and no liberty interest protected by the fourteenth amendment prayer primarily not because of the credits were restored it's because he's a like for and he gains no credits nor does he lose credits under the  out earlier this is one of eighteen in ninety six one is seventeen in one thousand ninety four hearing and it would be speculative at most and as the counsel suggested earlier there were other elements issue of being it being speculative there is no reasonable likelihood under the circumstances if you have eighteen distilleries and we're discussing let me one if you have a life crime if you have him program both vocational and educational him failing to participate and self help programs in therapy etc and that was the basis for the denial in both instances so would be speculation of most the stuff projects russian exercise or the board of prison terms they merits of whether or not he is and i do process that with the district court did well under wilson no it made very clear that the disciplinary really has no effect in terms of the speculation of most because it is again there is so much sense and that's where you end up we go back to the due process in the some evidence standard clearly there was a notice there was an opportunity to respond and a written statement of the and that's all we have the evidence petitioner concedes there was some evidence that it was the debate that should and the issue here before the court about due process the retaliation claim well i would like to point out to the court the the writing in the fine which council just made reference to quote obviously the deferential standard we talk about the some evidence standard here would never apply it prisoners could simply fashion their complaint to allege retaliation based on the disciplinary charge instead of the punishment that's exactly what's happening here the council are petitioner champ
want to do it later and it can wait for another period of time i think once he gets out of prison you can do a modification proceeding that even with greed that then the condition should be imposed you're not i understood you to be saying they were supposed to like a one hundred dollars special assessment if you had a single count of conviction like anything else that's mandatory but if you don't put it in if you don't orally pronounce it we've had cases i can remember they've been appealed or not but i think that there easy remedy here without toppling lot of seven circuit case and that is like a modification proceeding i read in three easy to get if you think conditions need to be imposed there whether they are editorial if they're technically discretionary to do it then various ways either through remained or through modification once he's released from prison and there are mechanisms i say we shouldn't be doing it reinventing seven circuit cases based on other circuit authority that is not as well reasoned proceeds  this issue so important that we are to create a circuit split and then signal to the supreme court they need to decide what happens when a district judge leaves out the mandatory conditions  to say that those were properly decide how is it with you process for the person the rule forty three and has a right to be present for sentence we can say but the part of your sentence right now to me tory parts of it's mandatory life supervised release prison term something else that it says very clearly i mean you know what you know better than i do statutory mandatory conditions this judge believe you know he's right we have one of two of them are statutory mandatory so we need to head back to the printer i think among other things right on that wisconsin form is mandatory but under the statute they are not made to joint those be treated differently i think they need to be treated differently and i think the cases say as much clearly the parties in this case do not understand that those are not do here is conflate the miniature ready th and especially conditions into one and the cases that say that if you don't do that they're very different than the treated differently the bryant case from this court which i cited in my brief makes that clear that those are two different categories of e but of course it was in the p s r and also to other choir so i don't think there's any prejudice or harm to the defendant from the fact that the district or did not really pronounce the mandatory conditions and i think that's
drinks as a good old fashion word for people as we call them suckers and there are other people people who stay up nights figuring out how to take away what they've got are all kinds of games my kids for instance he's got everything he's young he's healthy got a job and he's got a company of big factories to make things a man can use big cities people from different countries with different religions different colored skin crazy they can live together and work together and build america together because they are fr freedom both to say what they please go to their own churches but there are guys who stay up nights securing out how to take that away from i happen to know friends i'm just an average american but i'm an american american and some of the things i see in this country so they split germany into small groups they would prejudice is a practical weapon to prep for the nation of course that was not easy to do they had to work hard to do it you see we human over these broken pieces the nazis rolled into one one nation one  read an american newspaper in nazi germany you had to get you information from the bank a good he knew what was the church was one post in germany still strong enough to proclaim the truth in g and so for all practical purposes to have been abolished in germany a lot of my german friends wondered what had hit them how did it happen where did it start started right here and this was where it could have been stopped if those people had to together if they had protected each other they could have resisted the nazi threat to gather they would have been strong but once they allow hadn't improved any he had a job now in the munitions factory but he worked long hours with little pay the working conditions grew increasingly bad and even though he didn't like the
thing if you take out the references to numero uno and if you take the instructions that were given to the undercover officer you don't have enough number one number two what the district court did in reaching this decision was made an why would she take out what he said to me how he directed him and what happened what evidence there was that there was a coherent enterprise  but that's not what we have here what we have here is him giving orders to someone who is not a member and not a participant in the criminal activity the undercover officer is a kind accomplice by law inferences from the evidence as the court pointed out in this case the government of the that the district court can consider the directions that were given to the undercover officer who is running the warehouse no three section three b one point one talks about when  clean the computers up at the time qalat the broker referred to the defendant as the owner of the computers the person who controlled the computers when the transaction took place the defendant received forty nine out of the fifty thousand dollars that changed hands for th statement saying that ron richardson is the driver hired by one of the a levels and or his associates something or other happens in relation to one below both and who are his associates and none of that it's efficient to show that it was via one via lover who is leading and ordering rather than one of the associates the main evidence
take a look at that home live what about it it's night all is quiet again almost wow well here's homer and sleeping peacefully to remember how we used to drive worms eve learn his personal hygiene lessons all right
of texas if compared with that of the united states we realize the tremendous expanse of our second largest state six flags of sovereign powers have flown over the lone star state that was a famous brand mexico the republic of texas the southern confederacy and the united states it's natural that we are proud of our history which begins in fifteen nineteen as a bold a month open sales up the  ninety two expedition venturing to this region of new things dangers and hardships caused many to lose their lives as they wonder lost and the wilderness along the banks of the red river this can mung propose a spiritual conquest of tech or an established twelve nation to be maintained by a few priests and soldier civilization colored with traditions and patterns  hard to reach their destination by his capacity in leaving who'll angrily sign the hotel register the end of jefferson and said grass will grow in your street unless you allow my railroad through your town the place his railroad three miles away and jefferson slept on in quiet oblivion near the town of mission in the lower rio grande valley the late fathers planted our first orange grove and established an outpost an eight hundred forty nine bring religious culture to this area the original  memorial to men like father enrique who rode horseback to visit his congregation hundred seventy five thousand barrels of oil per day which changed the future of the world and even the history of the world the opening of an east texas oil field proved to be another bonanza and soon texas was producing more oil than the world the price fell to five cents per barrel and the entire industry panicked by the mid
please be aware of your time so we'll start with the first case on calendar which is around bird versus cal state fullerton the other statements filed by the other party and in counsel's line that was the complete record the way the rule reads that he answered in the complaint was provided by the other side in excess of record and the judgment was attached to the notice of appeal so although they were more difficult to find in the record they were there and i know it order being appealed from well generally though although obviously our own opinions and come down hard on council for not making a complete record of the rule generally provide except in some exceptional circumstances for some kind of notice to the parties in an opportunity to cure and there's none of that here they just sort of i mean they went through the whole argument and then excuses for not in compliance with the rules but looking to our case law and the actual facts of this case the order as i understand it was just one page order that's what was missing is that correct so even if the bapak got me it would have not been very illuminating correct ok so we look at those circumstances and i appreciate what you're saying of having to carry the water that you're opposing counsel me and the under the rules obligated to carry to get the right record before the vat but it was there was the argument so what i'm trying to understand because looking at this is weighing the importance of compliance with rules and the substance of what actually what harm was inflicted to this coming after the argument seems to me that it is this goes back to the bath you can go back and update whatever needs to be done and clearly the baffler presumably was in the trial court that went against our position and and i was frustrated when i got wind of it that i don't mean to imply by my question any wrongdoing on the foundation's part but i'm just curious when opposing counts well who has a primary obligation under the rule fails to comply and include the documents that the appellate panel needs to resolve the appeal why didn't you just file a supplemental excerpt supplement to the excerpts of record was actually right i think we have the argument
from left to space not so many hours ago they've set up an evacuation center here now everything that boat is used to take the wounded to the this is the start of a long way back the fighting not a hundred yards away the medics started setting up a laboratory sprinkling down the choking in fact the stuff they do what they can and more than seems possible but no man can do all that he'd like americans the cases are flown by naval air transport planes to a hospital thousands of miles away no one who can be saved by to meet his last for lack of  cover nerves are made whole ninety eight out of every hundred wounded are kept alive