MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
money from planar and later did not pay the sub contractors but even that only accounted for one million one hundred and three thousand seven hundred dollars of the two million two hundred and forty thousand dollars of collins as well as the other defendants in that case as not paying to the subcontractors that's the only evidence presented in that case there was no there was no evidence presented that at the piece that that there was fraud but it did not make any findings that that the that what damages indicated from the rod were well what the damages resulted that matter so if in fact this was a tensional act the on misrepresentation that couldn't apply to the case here because the the bankruptcy judge found that the whole correctly this is not an appeal before the state court rulings mr manager should have appealed easy issues to the state court of appeal not the bankruptcy court the fact that we have a final determination and that faith and credit be given to this particular judgment keep in mind also that at the lower court level the bankruptcy court was never given to any of these issues these issues have been waived there was no issue raised in the it's common knowledge no one puts in drywall before it really is installed to allow the elements not to permeate the building and cause damage but industry standard which sounds like negligence on how do you can you explain well again you're suggesting that before the bankruptcy court some of these arguments were not presented with regard to the application of summary the clues of the fact of the prior state home rul very compelling testimony that was part of the state record as well as the federal record with respect to the collateral rocket back to testimony was in part that they used the high look bit on page six hundred and twenty eight of and that is the testimony of mr buchanan that shows a fraudulent billing that was pinned on bush with respect to this scheme with rock a lecture that is compelling clear and convincing evidence in fact it's undeniable because the the quarter concluded and relatives judgment that all the damages were solely related to fraud and didn't assign any value to breach of contract negligence or any other theory then yes your honor and that is in a two hundred and forty seven thousand but the womb and after the verdict identifies the predicate for the judgment in its entirety the judge could have allocated four by a special finding of negligence and prisoner contract but which was appropriate in the default judgment but they did the judge did not break down did not say that because of the fraud no where you're going to find that in the state court record that practice that this would be
must the much beloved by everyone yes there are i think really the difference here is there's actually as far as i can see there's not a case in the country except for the fourth in which is which applies to illegal reentry cases that are directly through the guidelines on through the statutes themselves so and there's a basic distinction here all the other cases that have dealt with the skate as a crime of violence o under forty one point two i don't know but it certainly isn't true under eighteen u s c sixteen if you actually look at the statute i mean even even the statute are spaced the classification statute it can't be for risk which is the definition that comes under the guidelines that you are not the one the one we're concerned with which requires a substantial risk that someone will be injured naturally in the in the currents of this crime his for scape or you being arrested on a traffic war there's certainly some potential but there's not a substantial risk there because the difference between a potential is anything that's possible everything has some potential for that as a correct you know fourth circuit doesn't a substantial risk when you're going to go into a place as they put it where you have armed guards in the substantial chance of the risk of injury there is pretty great one in the record besides the recent said no i'm not i'm also looking at the indictment and the judgment of conviction so when he when he looks at that he's got some more information other than a pre sentence report secondly there are crimes that in of itself are inherent in nature that they but we don't have a modified categorical approach we don't have this the court didn't do it well i believe that they did when they stated that that they were not relying on the precincts reporting long that they were looking at the judgment of conviction in the charging document and when the charging document what they classified it as is that they definitely think that the charging document nor the judge in the conviction says this was a constructive custody and that it's spelled out i think he walked the indictment says that the defendant was charged with and the judgment conviction says that he was convicted of scaping from a six year juvenile facility or gulps facility or detention and that could have been  of from a secure care facility juvenile detention facility or dull correctional facility the differently has provided the definitions and the the work for furlough would fall into the definition of custody custody was now what he was charged with of pork and convicted of he was charged with escape and i'm referring to the pelts attachment of three with the definitions and if he was charged with  know you think that's when they say when they give you a work for let's say from one of those facilities and you walk away let's say you never go to your family you just few minutes with a few came from this building
it was an existence sixteen years ago so basically all of the cases the vet defendants sides all deal with miniature licensing or some kind of sentencing with respect to juvenile right and he would thing that because he tried to avoid having the other person's shoes by saying you know i'm not doing this you're going to be shooting the kind of this is a different i'm whether or not if you're close whether or not that same rationale in the same mind
here in court by the government and the defense counsel whether he would tend to lean towards the government and in the case given his contacts with the police department and he answered negatively to both questions basically he told the court were not discounted by the state court was that it was a general dislike of the fence of trees and general dislike of the tactics that he believed defense attorneys employed and he giving chase and that person changed their version of the events is because in quotes mr lax kept asking them questions in a confusing way that didn't make any sense he also stated that the defense attorneys in quotations knew the players were guilty and they were being paid to get them off that was their job counsel how is that inconsistent looking answer that he didn't have any feelings about attorneys either way going into the trial and then he made comments about the particular tactics of the attorneys  to the task and there's not a very distinct line between man and when you're i mean it's one thing if somebody brings a newspaper in from outside shows it around and that's all we've got extraneous evidence but this is clearly a expression of it's like if there had been consort of a quote like that where he said he disliked all defense attorneys or something of that sort i think the first thing is because this occurred in deliberations it could be viewed as a something the by the way it could be a expression of frustration but it could also be simply blowing off the covers and say ok i'm out  yet there was the the the question of how you felt about attorneys that was actually in i believe if you're a questionnaire form that which of course they were all provided with and so it might be a bit embarrassing to say well i really probation as an explanation for their failure to use guns it's just going to be sort of earlier even if there was extensive evidence introduced in this case which there wasn't there wouldn't be any speculated he may have been on probation which is going to suggest that he may have done a crime that if you get probation is electorate's crime so here you have some of the number of violent criminals streaking he has written down that he will attack and kill people  on behalf of his gang i don't know that it's going to have much impact on a jury to learn that he may also have been on probation in this case it was fear is rather clear is that
perfect ok thanks your honor three petitions were filed in this case one over the affirms without opinion one over the denial of the motion to reopen its federal and also a petition the records show the notice was mailed yes it was mailed to the last known address except for the final four zeros rather than that specific four digit zip code  that they have a practice of mailing their notices addressed as this reform is aggressive and i think that's in the record but i don't think there's anything in the record as to what effect the fo exceptions to the time for firing my shot let me just clarify my thing first what would be the consequence of the reopening and your view i gather it would not change the review ability of the order anyway we'll leave because you'd regulations merely has to demonstrate that it mailed the letter of the the decision to the petitioner at the correct address in this case the transmetal letter is evidence of mailing because the board doesn't normally put in a return  try and get what i didn't tell you what other evidence is available because well let me suggest an answer to you because i can't think of anything else and that would be the best the agency could do would be to call a witness from the agency who would come in and testify to what our standard mailing practices are in conformance with our regulations and beyond that i can't tell you in this particular case whether this piece of mail actually went out i have to assume that it did because we didn't give it that and there is a presumption that regularity with the mail th there's nothing more you would be able to show other than what i just articulate and i couldn't answer that because i don't know what the board has perhaps the board does have and it's possession a copy of an envelope but i don't think that's the case because i don't think they make copies of i think the court is right in that after my client's amid the declarations of themselves and their client the burden has shifted to the government to show life some way that that it was mailed and under  prove definitively that they received the most important piece of paper which was the decision which started the whole cloth and i you know in my time i mean i had also like as this goes just thomas concern
definitely a little difficult in the fact that post please read this post the attorney are they asking me that argument that mr williams was misdiagnosed that he should never been on medication in the st place that doesn't out some of the earlier interactions between the defendant and counsel and the court and whatever and  you can see even see the difference here she said he is showing the site inside self control he was taking his medicine voluntarily and she believed he would continue to take it there that the defendant is alert coherent and easy to deal with and is capable of understanding everything that's going on as he has ever been there is proceedings and by their i mean i'm confident that he is completely fit proceed to sentencing i'm in the last issue or the last thing that i want to me is it's true that it's only been a month from the guilty plea hearing to the sentencing hearing but we do know that post sentencing  attorney before the postage and yet there is an attorney duffy attorney toffy at some point after sentencing raised this issue of this again so at some point between the guilty plea hearing rooms are going to see that he stopped taking
no other source of income so what you're saying is that it can play case that you clean up this problem simply by having some meetings on a given day and the net day you testified took that money and i gave questions are thank you
record is that a physical examination was performed precisely on may the said that's significant because it's before the federal complaint was filed bassman shows that he was in texas to a lot of and it was a document that was presented to astonish that a good tension driver's license and that it was a commercial driver's license and  but in order to obtain that license he had to be examined and the medical examination took place on the six that's part and parcel of the entire doc and the federal requires that information to be provided requires that examination
domestic violence where the victim was a woman and the prosecutor when there were three men on the panel elected to exercise bribery charges against two of them house apparently a man i don't know if probably there were a couple of men on the jury the total number of strikes that remained was how many  remaining we were able to narrow it down to three jurors and it was clear from the responses that of those three  single african american me and in the jury pool let's challenge or excuse we don't have it here and we don't but turner also does say that the fact that you left one on the panel is not this is a domestic violence case where there is a male perpetrator allegedly and i feel that you would have a stronger case if it's me and have been stricken from the panel but in light were and women in the beginning of the pool duly you know those those three were yet up to that point we had fourteen members the remaining members other than those three were women it was a skewed sample so you're saying that in the entire jury pool there were fourteen people i'm saying and all of the people who had been called at the point the motion was made only fourteen people have been called and those things weren't as far as ones here we know that both the trial and the appellate court opinion took place after the supreme court clarified in box then back in california the so called strong likelihood language  and the reason why inference language are the same thing in any event from that point forward are to be applied as the same thing and we know that if the lower courts if a well i suppose that some point this court is hopefully going to come to the conclusion that the state court means what it says and that it's now capable of following the very clear direction given through it if not by way done by fox or by john from weighed when the strong likelihood language is used something that well it's again if the remains response position that those that cooper cooper would itself as well as fernando them all of them again you must you can't divorce them from their facts and they all preceded the clarification by the state court including disagreeing with your argument and rethink  situation where in fact we would not probably not want that person sitting on the jury as the prosecution because they might in fact identify more with the man or woman so it really and again and also in these types of cases you can also point to an equal y popular stereotype which is that women are more harsh in judging other women than they are against men and i don't think that has any more basis then any necessary assumption that a woman is going to favor woman in a domestic violence case but it goes to show is that you can always come up with some sort of itself stereotypical justification on the basis of the type of the case in order to support such emotion and therefore that doesn't have that much weight could you make a prime a to do a comparative analysis on appeal to show that there are reasons that they generated for the first time on appeal were potential usual posture threaten to arise in but that's the basis for the comparative analysis
other on the on the issue of identity and you know this court has considered for for be evidence in a number of fairly recent decisions and i'm not going to evidence concerning the eyes robbery and not you know this isn't unusual these facts are a bit unusual we're you have these three robberies in the run of the middle yes on your client pleads guilty to yes you know why isn't it proper evidence is for the defense was concerned was that several witnesses had claimed that the person who committed that last robbery was a light skinned black male which obviously did not fit the description for this defendant and that was actually entered by way of both at the time that the evidence was introduced as well as in the final of charge there's no question about that and i think that there is some suggestion in the case all that that may reduce the extent of the prejudice of course there are other discussions during the course of the trial with the judge concerning the extent of the prejudice there was never in my judgment a thorough analysis of the type that this court requires so little faith that for example  the judge probably tried to do some sort of work three balancing i think the judge was sensitive that he would be extremely prejudicial if for example they allowed the guy his video showing the gun and the reaction of the of the victim so he agreed to keep that at the request of the defense however i think where the analysis for sure is i don't think the judge had a handle on the extent of the evidence that was going to be permitted again i think that's part of the danger here because while the government says well the prosecutor never ends the jury to him for that long explicitly at least so if the prosecutor were arguing in conformity with the living instructions i suspect she would not be saying quote when he's say things like in my mind the coldest spot on which is what he said about the shoes but that's not for him to decide that's for the jury to decide that's that's the prosecutor various come back
of the expert but he went on to say in addition even if he did have discretion he would still bar the next verse and in that part of the reagan case the supreme court said well we're not going to look at whether the trial or actually  thousand is a reasonable number i think the trial judge also was able to conclude that you know and this is the complaint up until the second day of trial was requesting  what is in the record to support the trial judge's ultimate fine as not being an abuse of discretion and like i say with this finding that you know the motion to amend would not change that and this doesn't even argue wasn't timely that there were previous opportunities to him and that agnes had had all the information she needed in order to make this commitment really since the time she filed the original plaint angus offer no excuse or even any reason at all as to her failure to amend the for the second day of trial and he also found that the amendment would have been recs you know that's something that you would do if there was a whole lot of money as you experts become very expensive lawyers become very expensive depositions are expensive and so it like to say this is just one factor i think whe the trial work was allowed to consider in in addition to all of the other reasons the entitling us of the lack of any excuse or reason or knowledge of all of this information from day one and like you say one hundred sixty thousand is simply in line with what who it was receiving before the construction of the house and one also got money from other sources within the company without this focus with his salary the rental was a distribution of profit from the company that you're going to see twenty percent of that which i believe within the range of fifty thousand dollars that was a lot of evidence for the court in any way and i don't think the trial court ever felt there was any connection between the c d s and the bonus and the the court in its first order  were the amounts of the c d s individually where when they were purchased the money that was used purchased the c d s how they were redeemed you know when they were redeemed if they didn't exist a trial the amount of money where the money w piece redeemed and so i think that went into the trial court's thinking in saying this amendment which was simply the amount of the c d s didn't conform to any relevant e
person in the family my mother says make her my least you have a diagnosis and i think that's true fibromyalgia as well but the medical records indicative of somebody searching for a diagnosis and i think the medical record itself indicates a somebody who is in severe pain and keeps going from one expert when doctor into the next working for a diagnosis and that's where you can find fibromyalgia because it's still kind of on the edge of the medical profession in terms diagnosis there doctors there really know what it is and finally she had if you look at the actual medical records it's really consistent you have three doctors doing the trigger the again with the medical record if you look at the clinic going to doctor to doctor specialist specialists seen doctors twenty one time for the two year period that's request is a someone who's in severe pain also the  her her subjective complaints about the woman take her complaints and also her testimony about the limitations on her daily activities why doesn't that indicate that she is disable that of eighteen trigger points if she was somebody was faking things she might you might see more like seventeen in the future points dr will she did a controlled test on her and we found two out of eight control points this is the person that
record is not final and it does not contain evidence of proper service and did not contain the requisite supervisory approval that is required by regulation to consider the order final now respondent does not defend by telephone but didn't meet the regulations requirement because the supervisor had to review the entire question and answer to getting in a record of proceeding and then sign off of it and the actual loan was spread a little order regulation states not final agree all of the arguments that we confronted there in terms of this facial attack on the entire reinstatement regime seem to me to just sort of refute everything you want to hold with respect to the procedural three refers to the attorney general making a determination and that's the same kind of language but i realized it was a different provision of moral as a spirit of but the same kind of language that we saw there under several in the discrimination about whether someone is subject to reinstatement whereas we have a very different kind of determination here about whether there's a reasonable fee or well that's why do you think in terms of due process you couple of morality is  process question has focused on whether congress authorized in both of those other contests there is sexual support for the notion that congress did authorize the agency to basically trun carry hearing it would it would basically over come the presumption that these are supposed to be channeling proceedings which the court already said and endorsed that being you and so i think it's just the logical extension as that and then the other case law which you know it least implicitly endorses the reasonable fair screening process mistreated him in fact he only served two months out of a twenty four month sentence and he paid what he called a bond so that really undercut his claim that the police are going to sell him out to the bank that they're still searching for him that the police are corrupt they had him in custody so no matter how many articles he wants to present saying police are corrupt his own experience doesn't really bear that out or support his claim that they're going to somehow participate or facilitate his torture by gang to only elements that were an issue there were a challenge to whether the person was deported illegally reentered and was an alien that's what the court was looking at so we're in a situation where the person does not dispute any of those and then they apply for w wasn't in the record but in assessing whether somebody was prejudiced by the stallion to allow something and we can look at what they would have submitted and that's what we judge in this case finally as to the issues or regarding the merits of the issue of course