MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the oldest of which had turned five the day before he died robin did not have insurance and his only real assets the family's only means of support were two fishing boats on through to corporations marcy tried first according to the government would be if you did exactly as you say the transfer she transferred the stock improperly to herself prior to paying the debts to the united states just a problem isn't that statute it's i would argue in fact that that's not the case or the the way that she transfers the assets is not relevant the fact irrelevant what the process was used that time and leave the statute the federal priority statute requires harm to the government and that is what's not shown here there is no of the rights of the government there is no delegation of their claim will the transfers that the transfer of stock which alternately lead to the selling of the fishing poles if  where the state was probably already insolvent this is two and three years after that the death of robert wright haro these these administrative expenses she should down to jamaica to retrieve the body within the lease while she did try to maintain that this is a stay at home housewife whose husband had maintained in a lucrative being conned by running these two fishing boats she thought she could do and she thought she could she could actually maintain that income but she administrative expenses were and there's an argument regarding the that there's an administrative expense of might be exceeding excessive i'd be happy to concede that but what about the not asking the court now to understand that to recognize is the intention of the
indiana code statute relates to the federal drug war instead that's what it's about your argument that it also criminalizes stuff that free speech coalition says cannot be criminalized but if you're not saying your current was convicted for such a thing all we need to know is whether the state or relates that's what i'm right not they are sufficiently related to the elements of the federal definition or the generic definition of the offense illustrated then i think it was wrongly decided your honor because it would countr the way that you would get there would be to say that relates to at least have to provide enough of raleigh and check that the central harm is the same the central harm so in kramer the central of the state cases but because they're not all published i do know basically what the government is asking us to do still find my i mean where i probably honestly i don't i don't know because all that would be admitted to any me would be that the person appeared to be under eighteen well the fact is there are no cases i don't know i don't know if there are if there have been convictions based on factor on it but i will just pick up on one point quickly on what judge came he was asking which is we've looked at every case that cited the statute under indiana bellecourt and supreme court case and no one has ever applied the statute in the unconstitutional manner and in fact the logan court said you can't apply it in the unconstitutional manner it would violate the defendant's st amendment right to convict them of possessing drawings or used depictions of youthful looking at dolls and that's defense most most people who receive are possessed child pornography they don't know if that's a real person or thing i did you know image digital technology is getting better and better every day it could be a composite image of you know there's a lot of
right or sexual assault are contained in that sense of home invasion by kate on the criminal side will solve there are no elements of criminal sexual saw are not contained in the home invasion statute that just like other second district case in the second history case is is that it's possible to commit all of asia without meaning criminal sexual assault of course yes that's obvious it can be committed in a number of different ways but that doesn't mean that there are not if the state did not approve the criminal sexual assault that is the third element of the home invasion statute as it was charged then what would the and in ethiopia that particular ok so he's convicted of a home invasion and sentenced on the basis of home invasion because of the criminal the truth of the criminals that they're  possibility that is based on double jeopardy and why what miller basically provide is that it must be impossible to commit the greater fast without with respect to the second issue  but the way the procedure was and what happened here i don't think we can really call a trial just when i think that that under the case law and at least until we get some kind of guidance whatever i think really the
the purpose of applying for adjustment of status constitute an abuse of discretion under this court standards as expressed in char and other cases the grantor didn't nial that motion to reopen is within the discretion of the attorney both the state of california and by the board of immigration appeals but in her reply brief to this court she missed kumar admitted that her counsel who represented her was not mr gaga it was in fact william gardner she counsel something that again my colleague said a few minutes ago was that she was told by her counsel that she would let her know when her petition for if you did it that's actually not in the record if she's never indicated that before today that he would tell her that before the so we don't have a ruling from the b i mean about whether or not the the performance of counsel constitutes an exceptional circumstance the board has an open mind on that in th background work including the security items that are commonplace now that would have to be gone through there's no indication that the alien is in any way proximate to having such and such an adjustment granted but she could file from abroad to have  out of her failure to voluntarily depart i believe would preclude her from from reentry for a period of five years unless again she could show some extraordinary circumstance and that with the five years we measured her when she should have departed or when she actually did a part i believe it's measured from the time of her actual departure your honor but i am not certain about that i'd be happy to submit to the court the standard for that i just thought of that because your colleague made mention and i guess it's been five years further questions i would just start by adding to want to dish will point raised by counsel and that is that the government should be stopped from any force in the deportation order because of the error in calculating the time on the motion to reopen again the time on calculating the motion to reopen is sort of a red herring here it's not really the central question there's no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the government here and there would have to even if there were an affirmative misconduct there would have to be evidence under the just standard that the government's conduct worked experience in justice i think that's the language of that case and i think there is not evidence of that here based on again the time issue of whether the motion to reopen was tonight in a timely manner so
the judge had explained well first of all nobody asked her if you're denying how do you reconcile that the record is the record says that there's someone with a similar name who entered from let's say lebanon as you know i mean she knew that that's why the reason for denying it i think that's what the show's counsel stayed in the brief that's not clear nobody asked her about why i mean basically though it could be that she was afraid so afraid of the persecution that she suffered  exactly and i'm not sure why but but the my understanding is that the visas the three thesis for three different cases were issued in reading on and said that she was either residential or a citizen of i do understand that the record raises that concern but that's another thing that should have been asked to clarify did you live in lebanon first and i was surprised that it wasn't asked as well and and i yeah they were terribly persecuted russia when the when this trouble started the revolution as many of them as good fleet fled came here they didn't personally pick it up from the course office so when i go back and check the transcript on that but in terms of why those documents being fraudulent was important and went to the heart of the claim the persecution sends it back on an open i mean if the courts interbank on an open record percent the sort all out there but if you find that there was credible he was not supported and then we move on to the eligibility phase i think the only time the government would be able to reopen the issue is if they conduct the independent investigation again and find additional information because they've had the opportunity to bring up all the evidence already up to this point sure thank you didn't go to the heart of the crime in any traditional sense and hand and then it had to do with how she got here and why and not with what happened to her in armenia if she was really in armenia as to which nobody i mean nobody truck understanding of what the i j a or more importantly the b i said was relevant to the harder for a claim about the way she got well yeah and i believe it was brought up with the petitioner she answered and said the united states two prior times before her last entry and that's not particularly unusual people comment i mean giving up your entire life is a big deal and she also had her daughter here so the fact that she came and went back and then finally i support her story no worst things happened that were kara bond then she just finally gave it up and said i've got to get out of here that's not that doesn't seem sufficient by they had relied and that is a reason for saying that that nothing she said otherwise said was true because she'd gone back and forth two times that would never
which i think is the reasonable reading of the record or whether they hung on whether i'm guilty or innocence but regardless those jerks who believe that mr johnson was guilty of murder have have relied on his confession when the actual robbery occurred he never and he testified to this that he never saw the robbers thanks so you have a after the fact identification you have inconsistent identification you have his reliance on unreliability there's the fact that this confession was integral to the murder case to the death penalty case that was going on at the same time this robbery was being tried and again you have to this is the jury hoover originally was looking at a murder in three robbery counts and only convict mr johnson of one robbery you don't know how much it was a factor that well we can't decide on anything else we've got this one robbery you know he confessed to it let's let's go with that at least we think councils arguments would be deserving of a different type of scrutiny but in this type of proceeding given the standards that the well known standards applicable here i think we can i find that the state courts tre
slurry she describes a slurry and six hundred to one thousand parts water in your honor where the board air in terms of applying our claim to that language is that it looked as you just said the courts seem to say well you can take the solution or there is assume chanson determine that found that there was a solution there that is somehow conceptually separable from the rest of what the teachers he doesn't teach that he teaches that all these materials are mixed together remind me that sherlock holmes also demanded day to day to day i can't make bricks with syrups such as make all sugar corn syrup and clever honey in relation to a maple tree tap whole experiment on the louisiana plant or article was published fifty is where the expert opinion matters nor does it disclose any components that under the claimed processes would produce formaldehyde so that doesn't seem like a burden shifting that seems like an acknowledgement that j m s expert made the in this case what we have submitted those articles to show that just that go back as described the uses of dust real sugars industrial syrups displeasure and that around that time period agreed that there are several decades between one of the reference that this article today but that so if we turn to page and it's twenty six you know the piece that summarizes the by this court to be an agreement with the statement that is at the top of page a twenty s a solution is inherently present because this amount of water would easily dissolve all the binder components and that's your problem you've got to overcome that testimony or explain to us why it was inappropriate for the board to rely on that testimony for  it still does not meet the language of our crime and the reason why is that we claimed that we have a binder solution consisting essential we have another solution namely a solution of table by dissolving two components of sugar and ammonium salt and water if our claim was open ended if it said comprise and we have a different situation here then you could look at the binder solution the war iago like does what does the solution in go get contain the solution contain that exceeds th problem so you are out of this a loop even if the with the sugar the edge and big dissolved in water and go get if that is if that's present that may potentially for the sake of argument meet our solution obtainable by dissolving those two can be other things present in the binder mixture that are going to effect that it's not an either or mixture in the binder solution let's be precise because a mixture could imply something that remains solid being present in there   right but but but stuff that hasn't actually dissolved has to be soluble to be part of the solution particular one has turned out to be but i think both counsel for their helpful arguments of course
jurisdiction whatsoever creature roles in the case of cancellation removal were congress explicitly said this court has no jurisdiction creech court simply said you don't necessarily have any right to administrative review of the appeal that you received which is the so called streamlining procedures there's not a ten due process this case is different this case was asylum and withholding of removal now we have to look to federal appellate review and my argument remains as i said at the beginning is that the one sentence opinion which is very similar to a practice of the board would often do sort of a darkening the decision of the i j a this court regularly critici whether or not the executive branch provided due process and as we all know regrettably not to greatly depending on your orientation the due process rights italians have are directly what is what is provided well but again i think you have to look at what the congress look what was the landscape of appellate review in congress wrote nine hundred ninety six law which was that there was two levels of review there was the i j a decision and then it was a meaningful  farms and in terms of the voluntary departure issue i guess what i should say about that is that the board i mean this court's decision earlier decision regarding volunteer departure took into account the timely petition is not necessarily the same inquiry i will go back to what i said earlier in terms of the fact that the law did change and even the immigration judge supposed to be able to look into a crystal ball and determine what the law is going to be subsequent to our petition we relied on a lot of time state clearly and unambiguously that voluntary departure ran through the period  ok next case on the argument calendar is cool
of kind of goes back to the harmless error argument which they're trying to get around that argument by saying that he wasn't showing any prejudice and in this case i don't think that we c before but we really can't we really what and that was a legal decision i think that probably the that the major problem with this particular case is that there were so many filings back and forth including a notice of appeal requests for before counsel was appointed and and some of these appeals just go up to the ninth circuit and and were denied that there were so there were so much piecemeal sure that that particular issue was part of the six and then that right to counsel argument and because at various times he wasn't represented by counsel that argument was not m same exact same exhibits were presented counsel had petitions counsel then mister hayashi had an opportunity to cross examine to submit evidence to make argument with the defendant on the stand  there's nothing new in this case there was the defendant was given just another bite at the apple this time with counsel that the court made her recommended findings and recommendations which were fully supported in the record of october fifth there was or ask to present more evidence they did not do that either what what what would be the remedy here what would we do would we get the defendant the petition or another hearing which he still hasn't told us what he were present what new there would be what other opportunity would
the teachers have lunch at the chinese  the teachers will bring back to their class a snapshot of the far east and stories of any land the wilsons have never known anyone from the opposite side of  they decide to see another show to they go exploring a belgian village
and it brings it closer to a fight of that before this court intellectual property development versus p c i cablevision the two thousand and one decision to forty eight after trying to enforce its exclusive rights and his partner in a settlement agreement says well i'm not going to help you and you can't do it without me therefore you no longer has exclusive rights which he is far as i can tell and in this case precluded from in forcing the because his contracting partner partner in a settlement agreement doesn't as he doesn't have an exclusive right because he had already granted a sort of license to a s m so the best right that he could do if you took all those bundle of rights whatever those are and granted to to himself and agreed never his field or not obviously we don't feel they are and that is exactly why it was structured this way shouldn't a substantial amount of money given the consulting agreement  is the license back to a s and a as i think the record should reflect is a manufacturer of equipment so this gives a has him the right to self equipment for use in the non microelectronic area that is the area that sherman also has the rights to gra them so it's not exclusive that's the point is exclusive as a future that's a problem because this is expensive and i do appreciate what you're saying that i didn't quite get perhaps right this is were you ever read it doesn't say a non exclusive exactly and that's why he was not granted the right to use and that is the touchstone on whether you have a right to exclude you must have a right to use or there is no good injury in fact he needs to join the
tomorrow we're getting married today man couple and you mother you just said take care of yourself that was all nothing's too hard to take for a family like m i was a kid i remember i had an awful place and i guess i just wasn't ready when he did get ready what a trance and i got a long time since anyone but you folks at that time now to get ready a pal of mine picked i wrote you about a dive because i couldn't be good enough to knock down the japanese got him doc called nightline without the t told me a lot of this he was going to be an account you had a great head for figures for one thing done hard full keep work car died because we didn't have the things we needed the others the millions in the fight now get the japs for every piece of the scotch charge you folks who have to go without the little things so they can have bombers and guns and tanks we didn't have we know we can count on no other american but i am going to die in a strange land because i live you don't didn't go without
life i have made my way with words but i'm afraid that we have to call that wonderful visit to stop this is then a visit in depth with mr jonathan handy founder and president of the jam handy organization we all of his many services and ideas will continue for many many
respect to brand again the word failed to give reasons why a person would have been motivated to combine the asserted references in in the first place this is court recently reiterated in the cusswords versus motive power case quote you had specific techniques using specific tools specific implants of specific requirements that would approach this much like a jigsaw puzzle in the way that this court rejected in the in touch so let me start with the bra but doesn't explain hell jacobson does that and there's one of two ways that i think that the board could have been reaching that conclusion what is to say that those anchor wires which are anchored in the disk capsule itself or positioned over the capsule you would eventually hit rock bottom and so under that theory perhaps the board thought that this was positioned over that's an unusual reading of the term position over particularly where the whole point here is to create a brannigan could meet that limitation the word actually makes findings that are inconsistent with that and so for example at age twenty the word says will break and can be inserted from any desired orientation  substantially which means approximately we're not not not entirely that's right but that was the entire basis of the board's reasoning it doesn't address doesn't respond to the argument that it can't substantially spam the pass from the initial needle in a manner that reduces trauma to the intervening shoe so those were the board at age twenty three while that maybe had one sentence it was basically pointing to those reasons of combining the references and found that they were  reasoning and i think it's telling because the board didn't do that at age twenty three either and in fact there are many points within the board's decision that are actually inconsistent with what you base of have argued and so what you left with is it agrees with the conclusion but that's just a conclusion and that's not enough to satisfy the standards for obviousness in terms of branding in itself is a differen
district came out in twenty fourteen and the fourth district williams case came out in twenty thirteen briefly regarding the reasonable doubt issue the simulation is in defendant's statement of facts it says there's a gun under the seats of defense counsel asked is there any evidence he wants to resent he says just found a gun he didn't he didn't find the gun in the case but really that's the argument in the brief i have nothing additional to add to it i'll briefly address the motion to suppress the issue to out that's correct yes so defense proof says that a traffic stop based on the state of laws unconstitutional but the next line of all those cases is however that doesn't resolve the issue if the officer actually has on just there's just nothing on that so there's no reason to think that the officer wasn't correct that the parking like rob was violated and he was in so it wasn't matter because the officers have reasonable suspicion based on the open alcohol they had her back in for even belief so thank you both for your arguments here today this matter only taken under advisement and a written decision will be issued to this possible and right now i will take