MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
hearing us would you holler so we can make sure that you are able to participate  thank you automate please the court ken robinson appearing on behalf of the united states government brought this appeal because it believed the district court miscast the burden of both the government and the predecessor district judge assigned to the case in policing a speedy trial act as appeared to address those issues but the court did issue an order asking me to address the defendant's custody status of his time he has gone he was deported in april two thousand and  following reasons number one i do not believe it moots the case before this court my legal authority for that is united states versus mon tulfo mario for ninety five us seven eleven case will just simply sort of hang in limbo unless and until mr me here garcia illegally returns to the united states and is arrested for yet another illegal that's correct and sufficient to overcome the movement's argument in the first case i cited and secondly you are so it is a case in controversy and second it's not a matter of sending a message but it is a matter of resolving the important legal issues that i think are raised by of circumstances of this case where the court had found prejudice to the defendant because of his detention i thought it would exacerbate that presidents excuse me that prejudice by continuing the detention for what it would have been in all likelihood at least another year it's been ten months i think since the dismissal i sought to find the middle ground were in an area of equity at this point about whether or not the should court you consider the case and so i would hope that the court would proceed to address back down for further proceedings in the district or clarified the vase i mean no i think the very basis for the ruling is perfectly clear i think you roll the only on the constitutional grounds right but if if we to me whatever i mean speaking only for myself but whatever technical constitutional permission we have to decide the case it seems like a truly pointless exercise  returns it will be of necessity and will be subject to a new prosecution which will have none of these issues or problems innit yes i just don't see the point well i understand worried here without the defense well i appreciate that your honor and i'm not sure i can say any more about it than i already have which is that i thought there was an important legal principle that needed to be pursued here but on balance i chose not to come to this court to try to keep the
the exact same patents the exact same claims and in one instance they find they're all anticipated another instance the same office twice are not obvious it disappears wrong to me a feels like there's a possible inconsistency i percent which would've i think discouraged a skilled artisan from going over a five percent what's the point you get diminishing returns so why are those fact finding supported by substantial evidence so i wasn't actually a fact finding because it's really talking claims require nine percent different more or less and if the arctic just not really worth going above five because you don't get any benefit or bang for your thoughts about size why is why or why are the claims home the other day with said ninety seven in math and i was talking to him about the question he got wrong and it was a proof in geometry that took a friend of mine who was an electrical engineer roughly an hour to help him solve i was completely useless and anyway there was there was talk about the quiz afterwards and billy said mom i'm ninety seven ninety seven actually still an a plus for me to have gotten a hundred would have taken me like ten more hours of studying it doesn't mean he couldn't have gotten better grades it just means there were diminishing returns in his mind of spending all that additional time studying so why is that kind of like the fourth fact finding here what they didn't say was the art would discourage some act together and call that  you're putting this on the record the finding there are expected that but if each of sort of rejections and i don't know this record to go certainly clear it up for me i'm sure but if you took the rejections as opposing counsel suggested relied on a reference that the board found was expressly not relevant to you didn't appeal that then why are they really at fault for not having gotten more precise in analyzing the older part of our references which
waiver was knowing intelligent and that the statements themselves were voluntary so don't you think it would have been a good idea for somebody to include them randall warning in the record i think maybe that's why th neurological studies that well if you remember things you want that grossly toxic it fortunately has been a long time since i think any kind of experience with this but i have a lot of unfortunate myriad's from colleagues that i wish i did him but i don't know that
employer and brother in law the president in court the attention of the regression folks the real question it seems to me that we might want to help us with is what is the evidence of persecution if he goes back to croatia what is there in the record that would indicate that judge did not make an error they reviewed the evidence and made the correct decision when we presented our case before the new christian judge judge bhima who is a former police officer retired now who also did go to croatia testify and a good friend of mr declan who is from croatia also testified and the judge but there is not the family has been back and there are and the state department supports a finding that there is discrimination there is harassment from a country in transition they can't keep up with the flood of refugees but it also  that when we review the b o h work in this that we're looking to see whether that be any provided substantial evidence for its position you agree with that's the case well yes the standard of return confiscated land and property and this case is truly a humanitarian case but there is no humanitarian aspect to with holding and petitioner by virtue of his convictions on account of the statutorily protected ground if you return to croatia he will have a very hard time because he doesn't speak the language but that's not protected that would have been protected under asylum but it's not alone it's not available to people who commit drug and gun firearms he went back he got a six month probation from the new york state court and then he said ok i've done that now i can actually live and i said well you've got to finish your probation before you cannot realize and he said ok give me my money back and i'll come back next  a drug trafficking trafficking in firearms that we would not be here today so i mean this is not he's not a hapless victim here he's taken steps that have put him in this position and rendered him an eligible for relief that the government can thinking on when mr duncan was in prison waiting for the case to get to the ninth circuit we were told by homeland security to get documents from creature that if you have documents a travel be submitted for a decision
that's right your client tells us now that it's over two hundred thousand dollars damages well he wasn't really terminated if he was in germany he doesn't have a wrongful termination claim and what i thought what we're arguing about here is what he had seventy five it look like the case is all about seventy five or more and i mean here for four months after removal he's going to be two hundred eighty thousand dollars and that's not even including any damages for emotional distress or attorney's fees well i mean it's almost like going to stop well to what you're after you want to pay them for all the mistakes that your side made you know i don't want to pay them for anything all i'm saying is the foundation of the jurisdiction was the fact that the foundation of the lawsuit the foundation of the claim for the put on hold you don't you're not you're subject to recall he was recalled and he was recalled he was recalled he was recalled and he worked and i produced a copy of his misrepresentation you are there mr presentation they come here to you with unclean hands here i mean here don't take in the appeal well i think your honor that for my client pretty much had no choice i mean understand why we're here on appeal then i don't understand why the pill wasn't dismissed because whether the court would have had jurisdiction or not would have been irrelevant because he has no one full terminations case second of all he said that absolutely nothing and go through the entire you know trial process never conduct any discovery never do any motion from it remain and never question anything never even mentioned in the notice of appeal that there's a jurisdiction and then just to pop up i think this is a perfect case where sanctions are in order under federal civil procedure section thirty eight and as to his assertion that that the plaintiff with never terminated
explicitly conceded that general personal jurisdiction over the t r and c cannot attack second the appellants have explicitly conceded that the government contacts exception exists and applies in this case also not in di that the d c long arm statute requires that the claims must arise from the particular transaction of business by the defendant in the district of columbia and here they do not the grabbing of the balance complaint is an action for damages for the alleged dispossession of land all of which is located on the island of cyprus some five thousand five hundred miles from the district of columbia it is not in dispute that none of the act palace resided at this difficult and similarly there has been no allegation of an injury suffered in the district of columbia in fact the record is devoid of even a single allegation concerning a specific transaction for a specific property owned by a balance whether it's a specific deed of title that was transferred to a specific transfer discarded it requires that a federal question be raised and we know that only a single battle plan was raised that under the lanham act to plead an action under the act one must have two competitors in commerce and there's nothing in your balance complaint that argues that we have to competitors in commerce and nothing is this in all moreover the opponents to not allege that the supposed lannan act violations which supposedly occurred in the united states has any relationship to the alleged dispossession of land on the island of
and we will be able to do wonderful things for the people and and this is a message from the occupy folks that ninety nine percent of us out there we are not losing we are when the not this so thanks for everybody for all their hard work this last  time to be a democrat even if you happen to be in the state senate democrats generally when he took over this year were looking forward to good years or good years for the president for good years for the next congress and they know it's great to see you too especially on another festive day as we get ready for the holidays and it should be really exciting to see the economy beginning to pick up which i think makes everybody happy and we're going to have more good jobs t having the democrats will be having their reorganization meeting coming up this saturday december eighth and i've been the chair for the last two years and i'll be running to be chair for another two years we had a very good two years lots of victories going on  legislative races and other races and putting all the way up to the governor there's more that we can do and so we're going to be strengthening the party the battles will continue that the republicans are not going to go away so we have our work cut out we have work to do in the well my name is john david i'm a big county vice chair for the democrats and we are proud to be here and to watch the state democrats christmas party and in our county we are working on party building right static all the democrats got elected i live in a seventy percent republican voting populace and believe you me this is our year and we are loving it and that's why we decided to come here we are going to do everything in
who got the green card form her were married were married for a period of fourteen months and unfortunately the marriage did not work out but after fourteen months the wife filed for divorce and shortly thereafter mr  had that there was an issue of whether he had lied regarding to his relationship with another woman and at first remove all however there are argument is that at the time of his marriage to this person he was no longer with that first  income tax again or if they have he she testified that they had lived with his family for the fourteen months the judge found an issue where she said they actually separated after night after eight or nine months when in reality they had or they have not officially separated but he had told her that the couple were both aware that and were agreeable to him going to work in alaska so as to help the financial situation family during this period in accuser however there's also a nine hundred ninety four joint return which just filled out which is times times by either party that's in the record at fifty five and fifty six total tax return really doesn't drive any evidence of marriage either but of course the more important point here is that the court last jurisdiction to review this discretionary waiver after the government filed  the more narrow reading put forth by the spencer court that the terminations in which quote the right or power of actors entirely within the attorney general's judgment are conscience and are matters of pure discretion rather than discretion guided by  up to the attorney general there's an additional statements which test that the determination of what evidence is credible and wait to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the attorney general so that makes it clear that these be helpful to women into provisions that are harmful to women that provision was part of the violence against women and it was plies through a whole series of immigration statutes where the agency was hostile to women and where they did not accept evidence that women were beaten without making women climb over all kinds of hurdles to get their evidence introduced so congress intending to bring the agency into the twentieth century said you've got to treat this credibility determinations the way the rest of the world immigration that is obligated to be there jack hear the evidence presented from an objective point of view and not to use your personal conjecture to to establish whether a marriage is good or not and in our case in our brief we presented that immigration judge distort the facts when for example two examples she says that the petitioner presented no evidence from anybody else from family or friends to to discuss the validity of the marriage which conflicts with the fact
answer yes question sir saying it was not intentional at all pulling the trigger answer no i never thought about pulling the trigger he explained throughout his testimony that  court of appeal below and the district court looked at essentially the tally of the testimony rather than saying did he use the buzz word accident like what was he really saying happened and what he said happened was that waistband and then after the victim has moved away from him several feet that is when the shot is fired this is when you look at that scenario this isn't the movie scenario of a struggle over a  handgun you know where you could have a were the term accident you know means you didn't intend to fire the gun the circumstances here are that there was no more threat and the trigger well you know i don't mean to pull the trigger his testimony at trial was really targeted toward first degree murder premeditation and deliberation did he premeditate killing the victim manslaughter because what he did was he killed a man under circumstances where he says he believed you know he was his lives in danger but objectively he should have done it he should have pulled that trigger that's a and not amounting to a felony so he he doesn't meet this is this is not an involuntary manslaughter in this case the question though is the court you know find more selection should have the nade in individual words and we should isolate this from the context of where the testimony was given the question then is under such that it's you know  evidence where there were other prosecution witnesses who testified things didn't happen the way he said that happened witnesses who said that he shot the victim before the victim ever reached the car you look at the totality haven't even considering what he said here would giving instruction on involuntary manslaughter have resulted in a verdict more faithful to him and the california court of appeal the district court where the evidence here and wanted to consider involuntary manslaughter could that have had a substantial injurious facts in the outcome of the case absolutely and for that i'd refer to recent decision from this court united states versus aren't which talks
hey let's go see no i you listen you know you are less than me time you did more listening and less talking time you found out why your own buddies hold their noses but are fighting words god maybe if you're in a fighting mood you can do something about fixing up what's wrong with you like what like taking a bath regularly for instance with someone hot water your soldier in the army i'm a good soldier what good's a soldier he spends most of his time in the hospital not a goal break i haven't landed in the hospital yet now if you're going to armor you know what germs are the little bugs there killer bugs you want to know something in the last while we often had more casualties in those little bugs and we had some actual combat before the little bugs got to do with me germs are all around your billions up and on your to right now little bugs are going to harm me every that's why i know i tried it once got too many long words and too much book learnin for me book learned for soldiers to forget everything he's told about keeping himself clean hype if they gave him the rules and book song lyrics he remembers them then oh sure sure i would have the sergeant send a memo to the captain subject personal hygiene how about having a manual written folks on he also knows that his socks should city just right large enough to allow is told to move freely but not to move or there wrinkle in cause blisters shoes are important also when your feet hurt her all over our home or shoes too big it's always inviting trouble should be no binding around do pressure when it's full of expanded b
to his argument which is the core of his argument which is that the pre sentence report is not evidence on contested issues relevant because if you add the twenty thousand wheels and the tractor trailer value not what was paid for to the undercover agent but the value you get over seventy thousand and you're talking about the same base offense level thirty i believe the entire argument the government is based on the fact that mr d has not specifically object to paragraph twenty one of the pre sentence report which included a throwaway line that the trailer was worth twenty five thousand and the truck was worth twenty thousand however that the thrust of paragraph twenty one relates to the valuation of the real news which are the subject of the stipulation that mr d has entered into with the government where available to the court i think the court i mean the record it starts to look like the judges is acting in some fashion as an advocate and i actually spoke about this issue with somebody from the other the vendors office in los angeles and we sort of opined that possibly the judge could have ordered the probation department to proffer evidence i'm not sure how that would have happened and i'm not sure about the logistics of that but  you know i could have your honor but why i actually i don't know if i could have i don't know if it was available to the court actually addressed a number of questions specifically to the government in this case about that issue and was given information by the government there that the information was simply not available which further supports the conclusion that there's no evidence to make a finding i think that it is  apply specifically to all three doesn't make it not a specific argument my recollection of the sense you hearing was it was it was difficult to articulate positions that the trial judge how want to say and i think during the sentencing hearing why the defense did not and as the cause the court said we don't know about the other big banks in this case we haven't calculated that we haven't calculated the rats it's very possible that when we get all of the other then be purchased by theatre consumers there was also a great amount of loss to the individuals who were using the big rigs to transport interstate certain shipments of goods so based on that the government felt that using a book or the thirty five fifty three factors that sixteen months is in fact an appropriate sentence in any remand to the district court there should be every man based on the many whether case because we know now what the court would do if there were a net it's harmless error the court with jail sentence t
good question before getting on the time did the court get an excerpt of record in this case and i'm reviewing the file this week i couldn't tell from our filed whether it was missing and whether i need to correct it i didn't hear anything from the respondents on that really deals with fairness and mr rubio was not deportable at the time that in ninety three when he was convicted of domestic violence it was not a deportable offense and had no understand what the consequences would be can minutes after i rewrite has gone into effect he didn't understand the consequences of the prior came to mean that would i understand i had considered second congressional intent it was about stopping time it was mainly about people lining up to seven years after they were put into deportation proceedings  moral certitude why shouldn't that same rule apply to a significant other even though they might not be married and i don't see what the factual distinction is that makes a difference from a legal  discussed that in my brief i do not really urge the court to make that distinction that was left open in the matter granted but i don't urge the court soon adopt a rule saying a cohabiting is different from a spouse f have the power to do that with regard to the rule of dance for the question is does the rule apply differently in a situation where the victim is an unmarried significant other in a domestic relationship as opposed to a  that was a question a court explicitly left open is open still open to the court to make the ruling that way but i cannot strongly urged him but isn't it squarely presented in this case because that's that the board are taking the position that he is removable based upon the fact that he committed a crime of moral turpitude here well and it isn't resolved under ninth circuit as to whether bridgette applies correct i think i look for reaching that there is a question of whether the retroactivity is don't expect we have to resolve that other issue first but then once we've done that i guess maybe we don't we might not need to reach  are pointed out and those who are not was clearly directed to stop that very tactic in this case it was through the authorized as a permanent resident he's been here for twenty seven years twenty eight years and he he had he had expectations matured being defeated recollected ruling without proper notice to him and without a clear statement from congress it has to be done that way