MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
clear a clear for a period of time after they the real problem of the district court's ruling was the court said i do need to know who controls the company before deciding that the check should be written to the company to which you know we say is that correct or not and it could say that's not correct indeed now everybody concedes the only beneficiary is the company and that's all you need to know maybe sending it back with that statement leads to the proper
take the world into the voting booth with you there are certain instance taints justification for blocking choice because it opens an electoral process it undermines the whole electoral process and opens up opportunities for those who are going to have criminal laws against fraud or purchasing insurers or do that so that laws which specifically target that kind of illegal activity should it come to light that that has what has spawned from this litigation
box outside the courtroom up until midnight and we were jacked at that as a as a justification for adding to the day yes it was ok it was the argument
right there were some documents that were the proverbial needle in the haystack that it would not have been fair to expect us to find in the middle of a one week long trial based on factual report actually patients brought by their expert told us during his actual words or during the actual discovery work during any discovery in the case that he would represent the jury and those are two things we get into the first one was that he had verified that the one day case we could have selected of all the days their work make it to the second manner in which the expert mis represented facts the jury not only said that they did was correct he then went to step further and said the product pencil you do not avoid infringement by having a race or two up until a filter on the end of the process is just an additional omit the fact that they were using in my process minimizing auction exposure using nitrogen purchased throughout said there are no material issues of fact and now we've got a situation where you say well they was this new process and they were making everything with this new process so definitely they were going to sell it and yet we know the day before enough material out they could test it and then on a commercial size reactor which was the purpose of the invention to bring two processes to the commercial reactor it made sense that they produced that much then they had to test they tested that ization within the concept of the u c c which means you have to have an offer that upon acceptance would bind you to do a certain thing right and so in this case we said stockpiling doesn't matter that that in any medicines we said mere stockpiling is not a problem commercial benefit doing something for commercial benefit is not a problem what you need is an actual offer that that the other side
feel so you may respond
records that were submitted to me there's no evidence that he failed to consider and you know i think it's a strange speculation to come to the conclusion that he did share those records and that somehow change has  that that was the only opinion that was the only evidence and to reject the causal connection i'm on the fact that they're rejecting his opinions for those reasons i think it yes be overturned
court so so clearly this specific claim that the that the judge should listen to the audio if i read the transcript was not set forth by it lacked evidence on key points sex wise to so we don't know the nature of the invitation we don't know why gordon went with his counsel to speak to him or whether there was it to agree of because it's in a marijuana drug distribution conspiracy case this guy wanted to set off his own marijuana shell or work for one and the error with improperly is one of the misguided set of follow up questions and just because what jerry says i'm not sure that i can quote my personal perspective on the world out of my out of the jury room whatever happened at the airport counter here this is a clear case of attenuation the investigation into the step and it began as a result of the statements that he made a full five months after they are full and culture when he decided to meet on the advice of  to say actually a charge in order to do your job you're going to have to do the transcript and it may be a different matter if exactly happened and at that juncture we do think it is and how that how to find it to say that although he had requested a new hearing to say that by the way judge in the course of denying our quest for a hearing it appears perhaps that  to the credibility determination or view that it simply doesn't matter on these facts where we have such a clear case of attenuation ok only the jury issue  entitled to have that either because those three years are the waves are going to interfere with the potential jurors and ability ability to be fair and impartial in this case and that the defendant has taken issue with their government's characterization of some a medical marijuana patient who had many close friends and relatives who were the church that had been adversely impacted by a federal policy and the judge asked whether this was going to affect her judgment irrespective of the evidence in the case and the court instructions on the wall her response was yeah i do believe that thank the suggestion that that response is somehow anything other than a clear indication that the stronger can't be impartial is simply untenable and i would just  the district court is obligated to there were you have to me include listening to the hearing or reading the transcript if not and you don't have to have me hear it and then just make my sister's argument about of
through ninety one and ninety two through ninety five those doctors evaluated his mental capacity in light of the entire record and the social security law they also evaluated his physical capacity in light of the entire record source purity law so when the l j considers all of the medical evidence which i think gives us some direction here and the difference between changing a characteristic of the listing and just mean equivalent to one of the characteristics here they would like to erase the characteristic that onset of retardation must occur before age twenty two that's an important elements characteristic because development of a human person occurs between birth and  able before then he had these accidents so his development occurred normally and naturally and then his brain is impaired he may be disabled if he can  be the organic brain disorder that's correct and regarding secrets very specifically they require that his condition is attenuated by medication or counseling and that's not the whatever hypothetical case we're talking about they have this other things come in and medically i would say in my professional opinion and that's really the same thing as everyone else
he remanded this case for reasons now i think the judge was correct when he determined that with this court's mandate was that he was going to have another sentencing hearing and he was going to rethink the national life sentence for the enhancement they are not part and parcel of the same sentence there is a sixty year term and there is an enhancement anywhere between twenty five years and natural life and he heard all the evidence presented at the first sentencing hearing and the evidence at the second sentencing hearing where i might add the defendant did not present any evidence it didn't make any new arguments there was right at there was not much hope that this defendant would be rehabilitated and he talked about the evidence is he heard something that he'll never forget now this sentencing crying that's the way i interpreted what he said not that he had a blanket policy and he did indeed come out and say you know it's not and from the time he received this court's opinion in this case he says he struggled greatly with balancing his obligation to follow this court's opinion with what i saw and heard in this case in this court i'm twenty feet away from this witness but he also stated that he seriously considered giving this defendant the minimum of twenty five years as an add on something towards the low and just to symbolize acknowledgement of the decision that was handed down with the a life sentence no matter what number i saw it's somewhere between eighty five and life i've concluded to have whatever that justice in this case should not be compromised in that manner mr thomas should receive a life sentence as authorized by statute i make this decision with respect knowledge meant and in was given a life time and now the only people that can tell us exactly with this court meant when they said we front row do not abuses discretion sense here in the original sense and here you just mentioned a victim impact statement which wasn't given by it was given by the sister of the victim in this case so he said that he was moved by that originally and then kind of
other green is entitle to qualified immunity not only because his actions did not violate not only because its actions were clearly i was a green isn't titled qualified immunity not only because his actions were generally reasonable under the circumstances this just let's speed up the the timeline because i think all the point of his complaining about is the very end of the engine so he's lying on his stomach he has his hands behind his back so at that point the officers can clearly see he  does not have a weapon in his hands of these is as i understand it according to his version of and surrounded by police officers at least two even three if he were police officers he is up against a wall essentially so there's engaged or the time between when balco became engaged and when the officer st tried to get him off the entire time he was in dave's your honor so here so that and that included the time when for a few seconds he was  court a court yard and he had to make sure that palmer wasn't waiting in ambush by the time he gets out there and then whatever all other arrive we still have the back and forth where paul martin may have he refused to comply with orders to roll over e i i don't believe that's in the record your honor however based on the circumstances it is reasonable that you have because of the proximity of civilians in the area because of the potentially strong potential that wal mart was armed at the time is violent history his propensity to carry weapons and to be on drugs that had mr palmer been allowed to escape a nd time meaning if they had all the dogs out him down again and again now we're at the street where we potentially are cars more civilians than the damage could have been a lot worse and it actually and again i will point that case plus supports that it is reasonable to keep the dog on by until the suspect is in the hand or these very reason that we don't simply have to trust when a suspect says he's compliant if we have evidence that that he's violence  what happened and he said well the dog did not comply could i ask you to clarify i couldn't really tell from your brief whether you were saying this time after he was handcuffed the dog w wrong i guess i'm just telling whether a heart of your argument is that the officers are at fault for the time period in which the dog did not follow their command record where it's clear that this is the timeline that your client describes because i had a lot of trouble figuring out of there really was this time period or not after both and having an a command like how much and that point they should have pulled the dog and wasn't just one officer there were several police officers where was he running to i mean you have he was surrounded
a resident well the government has conceded that there was the fact that it's in the record to indicate to the immigration judge that he did have a fact a lot of the government may have conceded it but i sure can't find it do you have there in the the specifics portion of the record in which you are back is known as the i j a i do not have that in front of me well maybe the government can tell us perhaps perhaps you can i mean the government certainly believes that continue to work and and go to school in the united states and they would be able to live in family with family in mexico so i mean you don't have this court has recognized standards of possibility well but it still has to be this is an extreme is a criminal appeal from the thirteen twenty six conviction which puts it in a different posture and in light of what you've heard from the government where do you think we are well we're still left with whether or not we establish a presence whether or not we have that was that there was extreme hardship to the mother well before you get to prejudice just isn't there a threshold question of whether there's a defect in this proceeding was defective because it was a violation of due process in which case there is no predicate for this crime that's right though you're not arguing that well no no that's exactly what we are doing that though under the circuits case law we have again i guess i disagree with the government's forms of what level of extreme hardship has to be shown and there just needs to be as people fall all right and you know there's a
cooper but the standard for stopping someone who is a parolee is not very high and he had missed some checking and so i'm wondering why that wouldn't have be even setting aside officer hoopers involvement in this which is a good bit that's problematic why would it have been acknowledged that there were have been reasonable probability to stop him or not it a reasonable suspicion circuit case law is a reasonable extension of clearly established law even it if there was a duty to turn over investigation material i think was the fact that o'neill testified upon the st meeting that summers on cooper showed up that summers at one point started wandering around the residence where he was living and then at that point there was  deemed a high risk person and that was his whole purpose for being there so i didn't have them out of my view at any point i never saw any thing exchanged between the two and i never overheard anything discussed  any money and secondly with regards to the date in question when mr o'neil will stop after summer's testimony was again i didn't know much about the case but there were some things that didn't add up in my opinion  and i can't remember if the information came from but i guess my question is that well let's accept your argument summer is a bench with an independent reason to investigate stop stop hearing was a part of his investigation or part of his personal knowledge was that it seemed fishy to him that o'neill was telling them that he couldn't report yet his vehicle broke down and i believe the thompson was a couple blocks they saw mr o'neal gambling and then at that point the tussling was that it appeared that he noticed as we noticed him and he took off in the opposite direction and he said in my mind coupled with what i knew ahead of time that was enough to stop him based on the reasonable suspicion standard because it was it was clear in his look i get you back but my again it's comes back to the core issue even that  never would have happened arguably cooper not off me on that would have seen him in the casino even assuming it was true that o'neal tried to run away and never would have happened and that's what i'm reported that the truck was broken down a couple blocks away from where he would have reported that to the extent that creates suspicion of what they went out to look for summers again  o'neal taking off in the opposite direction without any of cooper saying hey we need to stop this guy because of this you know when you was already under investigation or are being surveilled by our o p officers because of the fact that he was considered a high risk offender and i can't remember which detective about the evidence you're hearing explained that theory or to the the process by which he's not in that status but it was in a committee independent of the police
standards that an allegation that someone threatened to interfere with a person's contractual relationships with a significant customer that there was nothing improper about we would not just be making the pleading decision the same as a room on massachusetts you can do that with impunity that would be quite remarkable i think i think something to focus on is the fact that contract has nothing to do with
you about and to me that's a fairly mature real omission as between the first and the second half ok so why is that not a piece of evidence that goes to the heart of his claim that the i j a could petitioner was not credible due to material discrepancies among his initial asylum application is updated asylum application and the testimony of the petition before the immigration judge now the two primary discrepanc concern petitioners claim that in one thousand seven hundred eight as an eighth grade student he was assaulted by school teachers as a result of the statements he made about socialism not being a fair concept to him and there's nothing on trial in the first statement on that and if they're not literally inconsistent in any way wealthy there certainly is reason to believe that he those claims did not occur because they were omitted from the that's correct your honor his father was arrested but the important thing to remember is that these two claims are the most significant claims and it's it's as your pointed out before it's quite odd that these are missing from the initial application now this was an application that he didn't file by himself he did have assistance in filing this claim  classmate substantiating this claim the immigration judge was correct to question the accuracy of this this letter because this was an event that took place twenty five years before the letter was signed and for some strange reason this friend was able to state that the event took place on may thirty first the classmate come into the hearing and testify but apparently they couldn't get in touch with him and that's actually another issue that cuts against the credibility of the petitioner here he claimed that he ran into this classmate when addition there was going to be hawaii to the department of motor vehicles to obtain a driver's license and he said  the that the hearing the petitioner said that the classmate was handicapped and he was also weird wheelchair bound which seems although it's not impossible i renewed campaign to harass any anyone who was involved in the student protests of the june fourth student movement now that was just simply a general statement there was nothing  the initial application concerning petitioner's involvement in the student movements now in the updated application it states that petitioner was arrested on suspicion of being involved in an illegal gathering this is an entirely i see my my time is up now i just wrap up might you have one issue that i would like to end with with is that in the event that the court is compelled to reject the boy's conclusions concerning officials credibility
in order to disregard as mary would have to adopt your argument that the only reason they interpreted the words that way is because the effect would not be quite an not twenty four years that an injury  a fifteen year old and nineteen year old or so that can be says that never complete different they in fact can be very similar in terms of their mental status their and their emotional age that you don't have that states of position is that the district court made a correct determination of applying the taylor categorical approach  goes back very very far right i don't remember what age he started gauging in criminal conduct but he had two several prior violent felony conviction in this and my office thought that it was honor i guess the question is if a mother wants to help the side there are other ways she could do that she could have turned him into drug rehabilitation or some other she didn't  the language is identical however if the court looks at the language under eighteen u s c section sixteen v it's different from the guidelines and the act of aca for vision a that factor that was factored into the court's determination was those crimes involved direct personal contact and that's what you have in this crime sexual intercourse with a minor films yes it is your honor the mandatory age gap in this statute heightens the inherent risk of physical injury and i cited a case in my it's not from this circuit but it's from the first target the richards case where the richards case the first circuit was construing a mains sexual abuse statute and concluded that categorically it constituted a violent felony u looking at it riley where the my circuit held that grand theft from a person is a violent crime that the crime involved direct physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim was significant to this circus determination personal contact is part and parcel of this crime third degree rape of a child as an wofford no matter how committed every time a perpetrator engages in or attempts to engage in an act of rage some contact with the victim is achieved such close proximity coupled with the nature of this offense just creates an atmosphere that fosters the potential for physical confrontation you know but that's not what we're talking about you're going to not physical confrontation you're talking about pregnancy you're going to have sexually transmitted diseases so don't change the subject i not nonconsensual touching list it's not sexual abuse this is this is just statutory rape between consenting fifteen year old the nineteen year old your honor the court has got to remember this is where the crime where there was no physical touching just the threat in that case the collar had threatened to kill someone over the phone and i think given the course holdings in grand i think my time is up here are there any more questions he appears not thank you and expressly threaten to kill them which was with in the town not within the petrel which is really what we're talking about here the nine twenty four the prohibit hard up which has an
excluding their cola payments from their on a salary for purposes of calculating retirement and other benefits could public yes for help and a couple of these exhaustion issues with the regulations or  so the problem i'm having is that with respect to o p m decisions it's unusual agency in the sense that petition for reconsideration is mandatory rather than optional and why plaintiff file formal complaint and that's what we did and i'm not aware of a requirement that we seek reconsideration of the final determination liner which involve these informal counseling process which is a the government sort of makes two types of arguments in response to that the first is just a bunch of general policy arguments about why they think this doesn't make sense they quote it in various cases  if you i think if you were to i think that would not be enough unless you took the second step of saying that it defines the offense with respect to the circumstances when the united states government is the employer if the court did that and certainly we will lose  and why that doesn't preclude the plaintiff's argument here and that is that the plaintiffs in filing their retirement claims understood the lesson of cases like for narrow and the district were mixed clane cases if it's just a reply if you just have a retirement plan there's no question that you've got to follow a different exhaustion route then we follow here with this was a mixed mixed case with discrimination  that would still be nasty and that's what the circuits of hell last point i'll make it relates to the question the government says even if it's a proper mixed case we can only bring our discrimination claims to district were we had to bring this is there anything else that you wanted to cover with us that you could do briefly are you are you good i think i'm good now ok thank you