MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
domestic battery class to fence legislature or national to necessarily consider these offenses are domestic batteries with permanent injuries in this case although it was charged with and convicted of aggravated domestic battery for injuring his  specter of the great bodily harm and aggravating factor as the primary aggravating factor in imposing the maximum senator and sentence in this case the judge said i will sentence you to the maximum for fourteen years based upon the nature of the crime the permanent effects of what happened that day to mr martin and he will never be able to try to overcome and that is that eighty five percent blindness was a factor in offense the great power the harm and the judge again relied on the very same blindness as the primary aggravating do that she specifically stated that the reason she was sentencing foreman to the maximum senator i'm sentence was because the amount of facts of the injuries blindness this judge in this case did not consider the manner or circumstances days afterwards they could have easily asked either of these medical personnel about the specifics of the injury how easy is it to cause this injury how much pressure how much time how long does it take but there's simply no proof maybe that this is a very easy injury to cause and that it can happen very quickly and without much worse that's the case then this offense was certainly not accompanied by exceptionally brutal or hang his behavior and you could have a wanton cruelty there's no proof one way or the other caused was necessary to establish something beyond the blindness to support it senator but the state did not resent that's the way this case was tried and the weight of the evidence came in in this case the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable two issues counsel mentioned first of all going to affect are inherent in the offense the judge could not sense this defendant to an extended term because with mere great bodily harm she did so because of exceptionally great bodily harm i won't go into that  equate like we said it in the brief salvatore says the judge can consider the degree of harm in sentencing the defendant for a crime which involved harm as an element the judge was considering the nature and circumstances of this particular fences that thomas case requires that you know idea of how group anuses behavior was this guy wasn't defending himself he was and he wasn't merely damaging someone he was being cruel mean spirited name asking about it he also stopped the victim for calling for aid on the phone keeping the victim for phoning for hope social out there he put thumbs into the victims as he is on your honor the rather delicate instrument oh looking he was clearly working the b exactly what counsel was saying and the other the other parts of this of how it happened or this what the staterooms exultant statement of my client afterwards that would have been one thing but that's not what happened here here the court
statutes and declaration of the kind while must be strictly construe section two a b is like a status in limitations the court does not have the authority or discretion to deviate from the actually does stand the notice that was given to him by a private investigator yes there was an ear and her name it was fanatically stuff that the notice also went to her son at the same draft and th aware of the crows probate proceedings within the seven months time period there is no attempt by the executive to frighten mislead in the court found that there was no basis in which to expand the statutory seven month period frequently concealed information from the plaintiff if the cleanest still has a reasonable time to file within the action within the statute of limitations period there can be no to date of the mission
federal diversity jurisdiction and consequently whether the court has federal jurisdiction to proceed in this case so we see that at the outset the district court judge determined that there were some legal issues to be  the terman before he proceeded with the case therefore he set a and i'm every the injuries hearing that's how important it was for the judge the term and whether or not the facts in this case the parties engaged in good faith and hard discovery proceedings nevertheless the parties decided to percentage oin motion rick was in an extension of the all the story period because of the complexity of the case and requested a docket fifty nine a an extension of the scullery period in order to carry out the necessary discovery and also request that from the judge to set aside merits of the case that it should analyze whether or not there was and in the instance of all party missing from the case the court states in his opinion on the order started its analysis by presenting the court to reverse the of whether or not an indispensable party was missing instead of if it required party was missing the court determined that it was necessary to have the absent errors in the complaint nevertheless if the not addressed the plain language of the rule that without any reference to the first part of the analysis that this honorable court stated should be carried out in such cases survivorship claimed nevertheless plaintiffs allege that throughout the case they have bade reference to claims for their for their own damages directly resulting from the own cause of action which are quickly although her heirs inherit and can claim so in that respect are you not challenging the conclusion that it would at least have to be enjoying your  i don't i don't recall if it was a raise in the opposition to the motion for summary judgment and i don't recall if i don't i don't have that fact but for the purpose of this  subject matter jurisdiction as in this case a new person must be joined as a party as a party is feasible and it is feasible in this case now the whole issue is a fact base issue that should be presented to the court either in an emergency hearing or before the jury and the core intended from the get go to make of that country money cause of action they it was being presented or pursued only by two members of the estate of that person on their part of the inheritance law each and every member of the a state needs to be brought into the action in order for the estate to be deemed a legal  to gain judicial personality it is an entity that is understood not to have an independent personality but to court in my opinion did not order or joins or because it was not appropriate in in my opinion from my view of the of the record empire last set a opinion on the order you find that the corrie clearly points out that there is the problem of missing parties no it is the courts duty to which claims are you saying should have been you're you are disagreeing with the just records dismissal of certain claims without prejudice you saying this should have been with prejudice i think what i'm saying is that the court
firearms was involved and that the four at that point  and parker is all you're just trying to use your it appears to me from the face of the documents that he was tried in adult court and convicted a felony just like any other adult even though he happened to be under the age of eighteen what is what is your basis for our certainty that you have a juvenile delinquency adjudication rather than a felony involved i thought it was an adult conviction conviction in state court nine twenty four eat as a term of art if there is in fact a juvenile delinquen as a juvenile delinquent in federal court for an act that involves a firearm congress said we're going to count that right even though it's not would not otherwise be conviction and you see i did nine hundred forty eight i have a special definition that says if hudson a contains eight clear holding at least joined by five members of course and that holding is that even if there is a fourth amendment violation members here it's quite clear that whatever happened inside the island no matter how violent the police and how aggressive the police were and in securing that well and it was not the b in the last footnote of security for example the court makes clear that the reason they're fighting spirits losing or rule is because the constitution would be fired and that any exceptions that the constitution would would allow would also be they can still rely on the fourth amendment doctrine that if they have act itself and a valid warrant which they do they can enter without knocking and announced that the police did more than enter without knocking
property rights it is not just one the deed is all the same and there are property rights can be parcelled out in a lot of different ways one of these property rights which use of particular her the end of the delegation was this i also dedicated to the use of the owners of the property to prospect heights it jason there to be in the same language and the name of certain era has again
difference between those standards of review would be dispositive could you point to any case in which the could of appeals reverses the word in such a situation even though the substantial evidence to support which final determination whether substantial evidence supports the court's decision and the government the government's position is that it certainly does the mexican government really aggressive measures to investigate petitioners protect ten in that instance adam is unsupported regardless of the reason for why he didn't report it he indicated that he was afraid so you don't have that evidence in the record that you know she reported it made into anything in acknowledged that she did know that anyone had been arrested and so on this record potentially these individuals were right whatever the reason is that on this record we don't know the  know that betty that it lies with the applicant to present that evidence and so you know if there's new evidence the applicant can present that to the point of immigration appeals in a motion to reopen however we don't have that before us there's no there's no suggestion that that an investigation that the petitioner has looked into the investigation and and found out that nothing's happened no rest have been made so that's just not that situation in this case but didn't know who committed the murder or who made the threats or who were inquiring about them and so the police can't be again faulted for failing to solve a crime that perhaps even police in the united states wouldn't be able to s off you know the court has really explained that as long as the government is making you know some measures that protecting its citizens and they can't be faulted for not being able to protect everyone all the time  target because in this instance they did demonstrate that ability if i could if i can go back to what steps that they took to investigate the murder but you know they they sent seven federal police officers a forensic team violence by private actors and its inability to stop the problem is not distinguishable from any other governments and there's no government nexus which you know here let's assume to assume that there were no arrests or prosecutions petition precedent you know you look at what did how did the police respond and that evidence shows you that there are wheeling and because they have the resources to to investigate or  well as on willingness that would include some departments that are to recruit some departments that are not and among those that are not able to get crude and they don't even have the resources much
am in something that could have been prevented if very difficult the pain is something you cannot touch you cannot he and yet the pain consumes you you will always feel  not decide to drive when they're drunk this was early in the morning of work they are with the kids to go for work in a pineapple what would your drivers be doing your own early in the morning but it's a decision they made to get behind the wheel prevention start with it would have been a grandfather today if he would do that i'm sure of it he would be i could gra
that's right so therefore we're kind of the last on that so there's only the only thing we've got in front of us of motion to reopen and now you're telling my colleague that lady became a citizen and she didn't do anything and deadline yes the most important thing is that the petitioners themselves or the board to either voluntarily depart with in the thirty days granted by the board or file a motion to reopen within that thirty day period which they did not do and because of th departure was ye for what you did now there was certainly more information which was presented on the motion to reopen they didn't even discuss the in to the extreme from age all they did was make a one appealed to was not in the petition which didn't go back to the i j a so it is new information why didn't they say ok this is why we're not doing it why is this one liner enough when i have large rodriguez  was applying for cancellation of  in effect your clients also had a chance to do something rectified as counsel say if they did he left within thirty days after being granted voluntary departure they could have been staying in as i understand what there they have plenty money to do with and they were granted fall terry departure so even given all of the things that could have happened for them to come back to this country they could have departed and then when she got her that sort of a catch twenty two the part but once they depart then they get they get caught for no lawful presence on mt regardless of the deportation so that was their fear in returning to mexico not to mention
bankruptcy and for all his assets were at stake be putting putting the fifty thousand dollars you know on the brochure consensus is different than if you put the fifty thousand dollars in knowing that it would ok thank you counsel looked at all the evidence yet and we believe especially with respect when you're looking specifically to mr stuart's testimony that his friends together a number of mr ste him i don't want to indicate that that i agree or disagree with what you just said i stand by that but i do want to point out that in addition to the question of intent which i find considerably are show that this well that wasn't just about the project worked in that they were somehow set up in advance and not hide anything i referred said or that is not the case st of all before the milestone payments are paid there was a sudden three ain on that project so any suggestion that this this milestone set up somehow shows that the monies were not related somehow to do a project or suggest that they were meant to fund only thing now there is a reference in the record to this issue of the minister is or question about whether the milestones were accurately hit and then moving to the next stage i mean landscaping wouldn't necessarily be in sequence of painting for example but they might start both at the same time and not finish at the beginning that's one example so i just i want to go back to a prior point and just just ask you one question that i have still sort helpful to us that's just the way the system is set up even if we would find the facts differently than the bankruptcy judge if it is a very close question about whether there was clear  error what would you say we are to do in that instance i know you think it's not a cross question and you say implausible really summary judgment standard that applies here and has been met but but i see the clear standard slightly differently and if we think it is a truly close question upon which reasonable minds might on disagree what what should we do in an instance like that and that
physical injury in other words the court determined that because because of the saw in the third degree america to a crime that involved bodily harm it's with substantial pain that lasted the certification of probable cause not for the judge the defendant never admitted the facts contained in certification probably cost the trial judge never concluded there that any of the facts alleged in the certification of probable cause were facts and did the certification probable cause was not even before the district court judge it doesn't deal with the conduct what is criminal negligence we have no idea we have no idea and if we have if we look strictly at the charging document the information we're looking strictly at the trial court made at any point in time and there's nothing in this there's nothing in the information and there were no findings of fact made by the judge there adopted anything that's contained in the certification for determination of probable cause so i said this the certification is not a part of the record it was never a part of the record before the district court so the there's no nothing by way of factual information that would allow a conclusion that that he physically assaulted her which i said which i agree and i admit it can thing in the certification but if we can't look to the certification and we're stuck with the question of what his conduct was because the record with then be there any suggestion that there was any conduct that would allow a conclusion that whatever he did pose a serious risk of physical only harm you haven't said what you did can you cause bodily harm pain in substantial pain without hosing a serious risk official physical injury by engaging in criminally negligent conduct and there and i firearm and he would sound sounds as normal career criminal based on a substantial and serious criminal history he is truly what congress considers to be a career criminal when  criminal act it doesn't have to involve the residents it doesn't have to occur at night it doesn't require a breaking but it does need to be generic strident as i indicated it argues correctly that the documents argued is that there is no indication as to what my briefing material state versus ones where it was decided after kilgore and which indicates quite clearly that under state law a person can be convicted of burglary of a building by simply not made a part of the clique when the certification what it says there and i think it says it in two places one it says that the prosecutor may recommend and then it has some information about real facts what it says there is that the
after that date they're separate in there's no relationship they're still legally married and the probate access surviving spouse doesn't say surviving s health insurance or in the health insurance section about how she's going to remain on his health insurance even after they get a divorce so they could have agreed let's get a divorce and i'll just pay one hundred dollars per month to waive all interest in each other's property including and espouse when here it's rights that's what's before us today right here and in whether or not we can interpret in whether or not the trial work correctly interpreted the a and their legal separation to show that your client had waived his inheritance rights right and resort show no language anywhere in here that costs about it parent's rights and in the  kids the best vs best from the nd district in just two thousand and six and since for the prospects prospect that you can't use an international agreement and target giving out rights that weren't specifically bargained for is part of the deal language of the language of the of article eleven it is clear that that one hundred and eighty thousand dollars which was used to purchase a home was it was contemplated that the parties that's a circular argument let me let me ask you this then in the p s a it also says quote neither party would at any time to the other party or his or her heirs to enforce any i relinquish his wife if he sold the whole house when bought another house it would be in his and his name only she would be entitled to make a claim if she did not want him to have access to this house there's a and that never change this that this particular section only applies to things that happened before it even if she didn't want him to have access that she had a number of things to do she didn't do that my own it starts at the probate court and works backwards but she's got the problems that are in this agreement which basically say you can't do what you're trying to do and whe
we were to determine this was a third strike we would be doing that based upon what was decided by a court in another then what we open up as a possibility perhaps probably with the possibility is that the third circuit rather than following its own precedent is going to look to what ever the precedent
personal condition well it's only a change in condition in that it's now possible to prove what her condition was all along the seventh circuit  well actually in the seventh circuit there were no chain circumstances where it was another child born but the first child was born before her deportation hearing and was a thirteen year old the time of her third marking reopened and then the fourth the second child was born it was a new evidence yes because me and and she tried to scout was that there was no way she could get that evidence before you know as well her circumstances being very and that was the answer to that wa because she was the pain when she tried to enter she had a hearing very soon you know with a few months her attorney visited her i think three times but didn't have a chinese interpreter with her until the day of the hearing and then she discovers that convince him to go back to the hospital to get a record and so the woman fattened jail for two or three years before she finally got this and then it's time to move to reopen once we have the new evidence so within the change situation how will that make it any more believable than it was for us corroborating story that you know it's not a fabrication they did have a second me now and we can't we may not be able to find documents that it was for so i don't know and we don't have any expert opinion exactly what th filemon torture convention cases should have a different standard from analysis because of it's not you know i think putting somebody back to a country where it's just an economic situation you deporting somebody where they will have really severe able to provide evidence to the court but there's many stories of women going forced abortions at eight months without anesthesia and very abrupt procedure anything different from what you want differently the problem here is i didn't see much evidence of the victim prosecution so what i'm trying to figure out now where the government really think convicted here and i get down to this point where what the government's doing it restricting the judge courts usually stay away from messing with prosecutorial discretion now one element that one thing that does restrict prosecutorial discretion is the duty not to prosecute vindictively but you have to bring yourself the prosecution to avoid one vindictiveness has to look at the sentencing guidelines and say ok out of this whole universe of things this guy has done is we've got to separate courses of conduct two separate that they don't say or think of the sentencing judge sentencing judge knows nothing about what happened in oklahoma and this guy walks as far as any impact on sentence i understand your position my position is that the government  going to bring your sand bag with you