MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
incidental here his sole purpose for being here for being in the room was to sell down to wake up to continue to sell heroin and sure i mean that room selling here one until he was done and one of the examples that i came make that my home it makes the business because they do not reside there and we're looking again at the purpose the primary purpose for this hotel room was for him to sell drugs and for that reason i believe that you can find the evidence close to balance for the purposes of the zero analysis understanding injury mr slaughter did suffer injuries and he did have ongoing pain but not every offense is an extraordinary advance deserving of an extended sentence under brutal and heinous behavior we're now looking at the level  here but the way in which the injuries inflicted the intention to inflict on growing pain brutal behavior is grossly ruthless heinous behavior legally or shockingly evil and behavior can be brutal or heinous but it also has to be indicative of one cruelty  better evidence here also pointing to richard nelson's sutton's codefendant and he did not receive an extended term sentence and again we're looking at the evidence that was presented to the jury this was a joint trial the same  notice because when applying this test this harmless test you have to focus on the evidence that was actually presented to the jury trial and that clearly was not and in my remaining time i did file a motion to i would be getting are you know that we need to look and well the way he moves slaughter intended to make of this of this hotel room and he intended to use it solely as a business as long as he could until he was o you could go home well my apologies i did not realize that was not in the brief and so i don't believe it was you wasn't mr robinson your argument about use that as a place to sell and i would ask this court find if you don't find that it is actually not if you don't find it if you don't find it with the level of reasonable doubt i would ask that you find that again if this injury is brutal and heinous why not the same finding for richard nelson the judge called my client a dog and a punk twice and then enter this sentence he heard the same evidence against mr nelson and he did not sense into an exam in term something tipped the judge over in this case but i would argue that it could not have been the facts that were presented to the jury at the higher standard or beyond
the rest of your case what they have is this dr alderman right correct saying that there's no causal connection between his employment and his condition of ill being right
the director in the situation has the absolute discretion not to exercise its absolute discretion brief is that the director ignored the evidence and accordingly did not exercise his discretion and a failure of exercise discretion when
stems directly from general law chapter one fifty one b section if there were no way which says you can't take an adverse and claim an action against somebody for not disclosing a prior
other women being harassed within the statute of limitations second that is french you know presented sufficient evidence pieces for a verdict based on sexual harassment to this jury and third that there was no requirement or there was no error in the equitable order for a first  was to set forth an event that entitled us to the benefit of the continuing violation of the city wanted to provide on the statute of limitations they could have and should have put the special question to the jury and they could have and should have put on evidence and environment essentially and that she was harassed and that she found it personally unpleasant enough to be actionable and then objective person would find it unpleasant enough to be actionable and then based in part at least on her gender in part at least on the gender in that respect the jury instruction was absolutely appropriate when the request injury instruction from the city was not and even if even if the city did find a more articulate way to present the was that she was harassed for reasons other than gender one of them being that she was a lesbian so it was a perfectly appropriate for the judge to instruct them for the trial court to instruct them that it was in part because of gender because of another reason testimony was required the jury must be instructed on front page first is present value future versus present value and there are three important points there number one that is not preserved there was never an objection to whether or not the jury was going to answer the question or be instructed as regards to future versus present value the only objection made was that it shouldn't be presidency to the jury at all because of the lack of an expert so because it wasn't preserved it has to  salary just like the traffickers attorney asked for for nineteen years worth of salary however we were far less effective and got an award that was the equivalent of about three and a half years it seems to me is where this court found that twenty
now and then the second question is given the i've got two problems the first is the first time around you suggested that certain crimes covered by this statute might not in that case and sent it back and also there is intervening there it's not a tire is and this idea of breaking out the crime by the elements had to change that had shifted and so i think the board  the state are required or at least we found that the agency had adequately analyze the question is there any reason we should do that here he's asking  to make the decision ours court can't do that because the court is obligated to give deference to the board under you saying we cannot do that we have the issue is what it is defining supreme court's reference to you have to take the least culpable no matter what actually happened here does that apply  hand and the senator on the other and here i think we're just discussing the massachusetts kids on talks about the definition of malice and i was comprises three elements for the purposes of ours and it's  to meet that c enter portion of a crime involving moral turpitude and the other piece of it is the reprehensible conduct which sure is inherent in the crime itself and in this  is the fire doesn't spread you can use either scenario do you think it's opinion has taken care of that situation yes and i think for two nice that somebody could be prosecuted for that it seems like somebody probably could be convicted for that but there would be on no one lawful purpose ok thank you
i find that the procedural history as well as the specific issues that you're raising to be kind of complicated in this case in the first question i have has to do with the push claim you are arguing as i understand it and this is where six by the change of rule he starts fighting rotten that particular due process claim as soon as he could proceedings went along with deliberate speed radley style marquee letters relying on the federal constitutional right on the merits on two days ago on september tenth by the california supreme court i just noticed that last night as i was looking at the supreme court website  that made this to fish so the court was really exercising its discretion in the case of the court relied upon cited at page nineteen refer to periods of monsour as much as two and a half years whereas we have three years the idea of respondent being prejudiced respondent represent the state of california throughout the state proceedings when caswell was in the part that he wormed parking the part that he lost in the during the part that he went to the california supreme court
half to see whether or not iran iraq at the are in fact would have it in her miserable retroactive effect on the petitioner we look to whether or not congress clearly cyr whether jerry conviction it's the same as a guilty plea for sincere purposes in this court sorry considered that argument obviously there's a significant circuit split on the issue but aren't we downed by that circuit precedent or another argument the government could make is that at the time of the conviction she wasn't technically eligible for to twelve because she only had six and a half years as a legal permanent resident however there have been there are the consequences could be like if she had gone to trial the consequences would be she gets turned away at the border and she is allowed or she gets in that into the united states and continue idea that you couldn't have relied on the law at the time at the time of the criminal trial you would assume that there's no difference between a guilty plea and a jury conviction for purposes of your immigration status so you so your decision not to plea and to go to trial very well perhaps likely would be influenced by that fa isn't a really significant part of the calculus at the time that you're deciding whether to plead or to go to trial you think well it's not going to make either way my immigration status is going to be the same if you knew i pleaded i have a much better chance to remain in the country than a from convicted after jury you're much more likely to pl is at the time when we make that decision and if someone decides to to reject that the main idea behind the plea of guilty of why it was such a clear indicator rather than going to trial why it was such a clear indicator of reliance was the idea that you knew that conviction was in admirable because you've decided to have a quid pro  exchange where you the government will seize the benefit of your admitting to the guilt and a conviction and you receive the benefit of having an inevitable conviction simply go to trial and contend one way to simplify this trial one way to simplify it is if you knew then what you know now why you've done something different to the philippines and that's and that that feeling has been repeated in the in those documents that they said again and again that  murder and that is not first degree murder and then they go on state by by whatever weapon or whatever term so you're on as i see that i'm actually out of time so i would just like to close and say them to either be put into detention or pulled into the united states so i would disagree with the government's position that she could have or would have been denied entry and just turned away  can rely on and that it would be fundamentally unfair or it is legal permanent resident who has lived and life in the united states and after over three decades she was then put into
number one six one six six eight harvey most of the united states provision in the guidelines and the mandatory guidelines given that it looks fixes the sentence effectively to the same degree as aca given that hopelessly indeterminate given was not myself a federal defender in the future i'm just saying it doesn't matter in other words there's a reason there was a regime of mandatory guidelines subject to departure but the departure could be for any reason so long as it was shown by clear and convincing evidence that the reason the tape that would suggest that it was discretionary fixed by the statutory maximum subject to intensive to review of the discretion that was being exercised which should just be different then a recall the departure was fixed in doubt away i do think that the poor between the two fifty eight application needs to get into this particulars i think all it needs to know is that this case doesn't fit into the car created by beccles from johnson's application into bed guidelines scheme and mandatory guidelines scheme was sufficiently stringent was sufficiently flexible to we have here the left i'm not sure i followed your comment but i'm going to address what is seen as your honour's concerned based on your questioning previous council which is trying to step back into a world where booker doesn't exist we have to pretend booker hasn't happened yet and all that is happening is mandatory guidelines are dictating what judges can do by way of sentence it's in maximum as a minimum as yes with a great deal of leeway but not entirely as much as was necessary under the advisory system necessary by the sixth amendment so you had this scheme which booker eventually  six but within that scheme within that frozen world you have something that is violative of the fifth amendment this is the clause and what you have is a fundamental due process violation to set forth is that the supreme court has not yet recognized in rule that the mandatory guidelines can be challenged as v ok our first argument is that because the supreme court doesn't recognize that room this passing doesn't have as applied keeping in mind your argument that this this petitioner hasn't made out that case but we could have a case where it has applied the mandatory guidelines to fix the minimum  premature thank you for
obviously he has a symptom that developed while he was working specific reasons why they didn't believe him he had been exposed almost double to what the actual exposure was in terms of years and he had the problem completely resolving itself which will indicate when he stepped going to work it should have been ok in years later he still has problems so
government disclosed the evidence before the first pages for the first twenty to fifty five and for some reason the brady claim wasn't raised so it was always there for the first one and then in the second one the bra to include brady claims in this excessive bar another ruling is i guess what i'm asking is is there another way to get to the result you seek which is to say brady claims do fall within this statute but there might be a constitutional problem with applying the heightened standard of evidence that you would need to show successful climb under the statute and therefore we should construe the statute to avoid that constitutional problem not by eliminating brady claims from the statute provide relaxing the standard in those cases that are brady claims on the statute you understand what i'm saying yes certainly that makes our second argument which is the fact that this she didn't sell drugs anymore and then in the gray chiles said that she technically sold the drugs and just gave you know the drugs out to distribute the conflicts with this court's precedent in applying the sentencing enhancement because in order to be found follow how that's where the words of the statute where where is that where in the statute do you get the assessment of whether the brady claim passes brady materiality what was the statute one two fifty five  discover the brady claim before and you have to defend it and you have to go in with this second biggest motion you've already had one but you've never had an opportunity make the brain claim before and you would meet the could not have discovered before with all the diligence in the world a successful pretty claim nonetheless is not going to be heard by the federal courts because of the statutory the government will withheld the evidence until the time of the instant he views petition supposes the fifth one if it was and so the defender has no opportunity whatsoever to know even the existence of a brady claim that first well that's not the case here is what we're really do ongress constitutionally say even though you never had an opportunity to know about your brady claim before you have to do more than meet the normal brady standard you have to show by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict would have been different i  is that the goal that congress can only do so when it is expressed a clear intent to do so they've declined to read into add a strict application where meritorious constitutional claims are close without that clear expression of intent and for th
he was referred to dr drew most never with surgery for the same dr ross testimony was that if you were going to have these injuries as a result of that accident he would have pain within one week that was his testimony he was
i suppose one day i'm going to have to cure the habit but i guess it makes me feel more even if just for a moment in time live i want to stand up and take my shirt off and sprint this track like my feet were my wings going about the job in the paper yes general labor oh that will work yeah i'm available day parking attendant not quite you know that's that's the next level in our local system where you'll be starting out is it's very simple you know you you  be attracting customers for our local business t i've done this when i first started and now like me i meant the front desk acting like we're taping i don't even know your name i know trying to figure out what to is a distraction but she treats me like she loves me she put her hand on my heart and squeezed each other it felt like time stopped and slowed down hi i'm calling about the ad in the paper no i didn't just call it works perfectly every time
i think in this case for first of all in some sense we're putting a little bit the cart before the horse the i j a in this case denied really on three separate bases each  was also what her attorney thought in his closing argument on stage one o eight and it's how the i j a understood what her allegations were so not not the fact that she was an unmarried mother question of whether whether she would have additional children beyond the three surety had in china now the second point is that the i g did credit her subjective view based that she'd already  with her the immigration judge pointed out in her decision that the father of the three children the common law husband of petitioner was inside hand that's of page ninety nine of the record and the children had american three and one off for the record so there certainly were other people that the children could be with and it wasn't at all clear that they would inevitably go back to china with her far from it and she did she had the burden to establish that point and under substantial evidence even if there's contradictory testimony in the record as long as there is no evidence that supports the arjun's determination that that's sufficient even if there are other things going the other way and there are certainly there are things a referred to in the decision this is i believe page fifty of the administrative record the i j a quoted the most recent which you would think would be the most important of the of reports the two thousand  same place in the administrative records that there was information from the us consulate general in guangzhou though which stated that quote sterilization is not forced per se unquote now i  i have two part answer to that ok well one is the time frames now if you read her testimony this is pages one hundred two one zero four of the record the incidents took place in ninety ninety two ninety ninety three ninety ninety six in two thousand and one so all of these were well before the most recent department of state report which was two thousand and four that's one thing and a number of them were close to ten years before us i mean things are changing in the situation we have a you know developing new policy here where in fact there's many reasons to reading all these reports together to think you know they're  sening up they're trying not to have the central government doesn't want people to be forcibly sterilized so you take that into consideration another question is again if you look at the specific testimony that she ga this workforce is thrown around quite a bit but what exactly does that mean she doesn't really flesh out what happened with these people now you know a businessman could come in and be describing to someone else about a deal we don't know why they're treating that's that's the question well what i'm suggesting is they wouldn't treat them any worse than the people who are the one that's probably so so so i think my argument standen and w
ok and i'm sorry to interrupt you but when i'm trying to find out is to me when he did that made him look like a father who should have their right to come back to his child you know did he send the child birthday wasn't making the appointments believe it sold two consecutive appointments for the substance abuse is that cements of they've warned him about a third cancellation the scheduled visit with a minor he said his truck with following up from what just happened was talking about these december it was not to bring that december fifteen or sixteen twenty fifteen that protester he was given the opportunity for substance abuse counseling tales of those appointments before he got incarcerated in june so there was six months readd opportunity and didn't take event you agree with that
intoxicated so there is nothing to prevent the jury from saying to itself we don't need to determine whether she was over point zero eight and nine ten pm she must have been way higher at seven thirty pm we can do the math the simple math that the expert  and second the person must be in hosts absorption so how do we know that she metabolize and out the normal rig in the normal range if we  have no input of that making an assumption as to whether or not it's morning or afternoon if that's all i'm doing is making an assumption the fact that i say within a reasonable degree of chronological or timekeeping accuracy because when he came out in sight she i think she was out of her car and so he just told her don't try and last i had yet to tell you the circumstances the explanation is that everything indicate car in control of the car with the keys in the ignition that she wasn't arrested for chasing whoever this mystery person was around her feet but again this is right circumstances of her intoxication which that's what started tonight one lon case where this defendant gave any indication of whether or not she ceased consum are sixty troopers i always liked to examine sure was what it meant to get drunk and how to go through the process and it occurs to me that i don't metabolize into normal range but what you're saying is i have to testify the day after to defeat this theory if i do testify right then you're shifting the burden of proof to me go if i didn't tell you earth the bullet will hit the center of the turf going up and then it all hundred twenty one hundred fifty or the bullet the target again in the center but when it does it'll be going down because of the pull
box or whether you're eating the ground because you're about to put down a cement slab on top of the ground work exactly the same even i can i don't see agree with respecting claims it is customary to substitute and insert with respect to the description of the invention i have never seen it perhaps you have but that's exactly what happened here your entire description of application is laid open in the sense that it is made publicly accessible publicly available and the abstract is public who would you consider that a patient to be it mentions going crossing the ground if you get the pile of history your points are good drawings and there's nothing there to get there's nothing that says this is an abstract art you know greater some matter that can be what in general they would make of this it isn't it isn't it normally the case that everything important is included in the pack because otherwise you don't have a name on it and so normally you don't
and you know we all don't have the record at the same time so that's why it's the best but we i do recognize the importance of that you're raising is ours for the opinion this is necessary but don't you find argument well when i'm correct me if i'm wrong someone files a pleading and the court without anything more is not going to look at the bleeding but only the agreement to decide if it's unco disparity of assets that description of the farm and three hundred eighty six acres did not specifically identify the land and the act wasn't followed because there wasn't a complete waiver what more can you believe at that