MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
has about twenty five custom made non interchangeable parts because they're all built at different times so we have a total of six boats the oldest boat we have was built in one thousand and ten and the newest that we can reference and so many of us have been doing it my cousin and i have been doing it for many years we worked with my father prior to that he worked with his father prior to that and the father so it's my great grandfather and mother who started this so that's been that process has been kind of passed down through the generations the paddle my name is jerry and i live in chelsea and i'm just you know one amateur photographer and and i think there's nothing like having the memories of this beautiful city and boats for the owners of this one bonds and last year she made a postcard of one of my photo and i just find this park just saw so serene so you know when i'm here it's it's almost like being in a total comfort zone and i love and i even occasionally will just you know hop on the swan boats take a ride around the pond and and i don't think it's a better way  you know to do stress well this is andy and i got him two weeks ago and i'm trying to socialize him so he's used to people second day basically and you know he just he's doing pretty well and i love because there's only one public garden and there's much more foot traffic and public pressure in that park then probably any park in the city or in massachusetts for that and this is one of my if not the favorite place and tyler i've been coming to the public gardens for years and all seasons because i love to see the change of the seasons i love the atmosphere because it has a very strong effect on me and today is my birthday so my choice was i was given a choice my choice was to come from a garden that was my husband and  grandchildren to celebrate my birthday and instead of a cake we had hotdogs we've read you make way for ducklings who are yes to my children when they were little and the same copy of the this experience of the ride really wouldn't be the same if it didn't take place in the boston public garden i think that for me it's the tradition it's the beauty and the affordability you know those that's my
good morning your honor is to me please the court my name is michael graham and counsel for the petitioner ricardo conseco i'd like to reserve two minutes of my time if i could for a bottle the parties in this case agree on several of the issues the respondent does not dispute that ricardo is a member of part of a particular social group homosexual men and she let the respond it doesn't dispute that it isn't challenge regardless credibility and it doesn't dispute seventy spend time about two months in the united states and then returned she left for another two months and ever again for a return to the united states in july of ninety seven permanently he testified that the reason he wanted to return  was he wanted to think about it but he also wanted to speak to his parents and he also wanted to have some private conversations with some of his professors who when he did come out to them encouraged him that he should leave chile and comparing persecuted as opposed to the standard a well founded fear that he might be interesting if the if if the court did if the immigration judge used the standard would be that would be incorrect  has authority to review whether ricardo established or the immigration judge a decision is held by substantial evidence and the explanations in that little paragraph that he the immigration judge made about the well founded fear an expert affidavit at  of evidence that a reasonable person would be compelled to conclude he was persecuted in chile and that he has a few of pushing persecution were he to return in fact the record shows mr a whole like san francisco he has no subject to fear he already went back to get come to san francisco and he went back to chile and he came out he told all his relatives and friends and even the people at the university that he he was a homosexual and nothing happened to him then he decided question is whether or not there would be any evidence that he should consider that would indicate that if he used the wrong words the question is whether or not there was any evidence that he should have considered that would show some likelihood in the in addition they they submit the state department report makes no mention at all of a persecution against against homosexuals and the evidence they submitted  where where he was at the time the police came and it's unclear why the police came there and they never injured him they never seriously injured him they took down his information that he was released he was never charged they other times and i don't know he did injure him gay he wanted to come out in a private conversation to his parents and the son of his professors it wasn't as if it was some kind of press conference it was a very private matter and he wanted to deal with i have one final question i know you would like to make a finding founded fear if not are you asking that it be remanded because they applied the incorrect standard in determining whether there was a well founded fear if the court finds that there was no past persecution and
challenge the administrative finding of trafficking through the complete agency process and ultimately the finding of trafficking without help then filed suit in the u s district court in the district of maine to further challenge the five judge won't be ultimately granted summary judgment in that matter and that's how we come to you mr produced as evidence and that matter a number mr b provided through his testimony and through other documents evidence we believe it's the inference drawn by the government from the electronic data and the patterns that you know your honor and that evidence calms down from the inventory receipts i agree to that one fact alone may not be enough but you have to couple it with the other facts in the case which is the testimony from mr robey regarding the manner in which the community around town typically made very quick transactions and that he would also also customers sometimes would forget me in particular because it was out in a different room in a cooler or he would have to rent up in quick succession another transaction on that car isn't a case where you can't necessarily look at just one piece of evidence to knock down the inference from the data you have to take it as a whole think you do in in the record regarding the nature and amount of purchases made by customers at those stores using snap benefits i don't believe in the record there's any data or evidence regarding the amount of inventory that those stores purchase up to the extent we're looking to see if mr rob
other hand what we have is an amendment which specifically provides that the original grimmett shall remain in full force and in fact all of the parties respective obligations including the various products and services should be provided by stone a analysis of what parties can do release or release or can do in the event you really see breaches the release agreeing that and this court specifically explained that we release or in that situation would have a right
argument about what should've been made in closing argument
these two of the individuals tyler and randall indicated that of times when they had been molested and they were molested they also witnessed four other individuals being molested as well and they told that to the interview that would have testi government spiced united states versus the bosley but in that case that involved a strict extrinsic evidence accuse me of misconduct that was unrelated to the offense charged and don't and we don't believe that that is relevant to this case at hand regarding the testimony of mr tuesday and we believe that the entire testimony should have been precluded regarding the general characteristics because of her dual role she interviewed these children and then later testified as an expert on the behalf of the government that created what we believe to be a bias on her part because she now has a stake in the outcome if she were to discuss general characteristics that  something for her testimony one counsel had no other choice for example brandon the youngest trial could not be impeached we had transcripts from the previous interviews but he could not read and there would be no other way to impeach brandon  believe that in her direct testimony although i have to admit that it was not objected to go into specifics of her interviews when she talked about the demeanor of the children she indicated that tyler was fearful fearful excuse me and brandon  that is typical of what she sees after she had interviewed some seven hundred interviews conducted some seven hundred interviews and two hundred and observed two hundred more and then i believe that on redirect she not only she went beyond the scope on cross on on direct what was brought out was one the general characteristics that children exhibit when they have been abused and was anything brought on direct about these particular children yes what she testified regarding the demeanor of all four children tyler brandon eli and randall and that was at the end of her direct testimony she was only question about the existence of inconsistent statements and it did not question the procedure for which she followed and did not question the fact that certain children exhibit certain characteristics if they had been abused she was only asked to confirm that certain consistencies exist and again it is our position that we don't believe that that allows the government to go to the next step to explain why error far out by the overwhelming evidence against the defendant the evidence for the jury your honor the extensive testimony of the victim witnesses which comprised nearly two hundred pages your for eighteen or nineteen and four fifty five to four fifty seven there was absolutely no testimony regarding any incidence or knowledge regarding the other propose testimony and the government finds none the only reference to to drain was ground at e r c thirty one and the victim witness said that he had not observed any  outgrowth of what had been asked a pine cross examination government's position is that it was invited error and not improper to follow up on the
good morning our st case this morning which which you could've sought we did not have an opportunity to speak that we were ordered to return the vehicle before having the opportunity to have  car back but before you give the keys to the owner have you ever gone into a bankruptcy court and said look we're about to lose possession there's a seven certain case called thompson we've got to give this guy the keys but we want adequate believe that we're entitled to adequate protection for our security interests and we're going to put a motion on file here because we want to get protected there and i mean i've never done that that is not the procedure that we  for the debtor to exercise the debt control over the property he is absolutely taking action to prevent the debtor from obtaining the car and that's exactly what the sport felt in the thompson case you look up the meaning of exercise control and tell the thief exercise of control included directing the way the property is used so that when the city prevents the debtor from using the question that they could get an immediate ruling on this question what's really going on here is a judgment call as to what is the more appropriate procedure is more appropriate is the city argues  required to file an adversary proceeding against every creditor whose holding property of the debtor at the time the case of spot or is it more appropriate to require the creditor to come into court and ask for adequate protection politician and and then once they get their car back they dismiss the petition isn't there a remedy for that there certainly are a number of remedies but the most important is that the filing of a bankruptcy case particularly a chapter thirteen before the creditor has the obligation to return the property and the why do you think we have to decide this i will retire i think we resolved in thompson i grew i mean there's there's bridge that is clear as a bell and thompson about five strike they want to be able to argue that the beat three exception to the automatic stay prevents them from having to deliver their property because then they would lose their possess ruling however that is not the common law and possess r apparently one is that in this whole collection process the city is not primarily enforcing close policy it's importing revenue collection there are any number of reasons to come to this conclusion but what i want to they can't lose nine percent of their revenue it's important for their budget to collect the times but it is not primarily public safety another thing i can mention is that the driver of the car is not the person who is liable under these ordinances it's the that was done by the chicago public radio station and other public interest groups on the subject a couple of years ago the total amount of vehicles that were seized by the twenty thousand
as counsel has pointed out the issues in this case are whether or not my client anthony firestone invoked his right to counsel whether the invocation was complete or limited and whether he waived as to his invocation of his right to counsel he was asked  question did you shoot your brother in the foot to which he replied i'm not going to answer that question without my lawyer his question was a mission is his response was a response to that question and it was in my opinion it was invocation of his right to counsel simply stated in the negative it would be preferable obviously for him to say i want a lawyer but to say i am not going to answer that question without a lawyer is the same thing stated again in the negative  counsel's correct that the standard is whether a reasonable officer would have believed that the defendant requested aware now the courts have never ever required magic words as souter going to davis which the defendant told the police that he was not willing to give them a written statement well this is really just speak to them as a supreme build pointed out on the asian was accompanied by an affirmative willingness to speak commonwealth of virginia which is also very different in this case the defendant told the police officer there are certain questions i'm not going to talk to you about without a lawyer i believe it was a request in reference to a  presented a two pieces that were very useful and should have been considered by the trial court one of those was connecticut versus barrett and we had there well not being by it was extremely educational and should have been considered because the would believe based on the statement it has to be made with the requisite level with clarity so no officer did not ask him redeeming may say you are going to answer that question it's a big clear statement he didn't have to ask for clarity because it his right to counsel he just doesn't want to answer that question i can move on to the rest i need it to be reasonable objective officer is going to pull the same belief in the pie in the same manner there is nothing improperly done in this case and the trial  question that were entirely permissible and in the course of this question is the defendant in volunteering revealing his right to counsel and volunteered additional information that was his choice he had his own free will in order to do that
keeping at least the conspiracy instruction i guess you know more or less i guess it's ok he didn't he did not suggest something different but it doesn't necessarily for the defense to do them in falsely cooler to properly instruct particularly when it me please the court remember on behalf of the united states that is the practice for the jury instructions to go back to the jury in our district as well this is the first issue this is a classic waiver the district court district judge not only a sense that there's no objection but the sense that the defense both parties in fact completely agreed with the court's proposal which we said mitt was correct and i think that mr corbett has somewhat  me they also support what happened here and be on it evidence regarding your chronic discussion is as right and as appropriate for the dream to have considered with regard to the charge conspiracy as was the very grueling process and then one conversation turned to pill distribution and corbett initially asked if gillis could get some tells for him garish did and then of relationship quickly thereafter trying to cooperate sharing that he could get
next we will be entering the conference room where you guys as a new hire will be here for you guys as the new hires will be sitting for the next six hours in the same chair in the same thrill listening to  we came up with the idea of a royal exploration which would be parallel to the scavenger people would go from building to building searching for certain checkpoints examples of which are and they would be discovering the three key elements through that process so for example for technology they would have to take a selfie with the c e o and post it on social media also for movement they would have to shoot a basket in the wellness center and document that somehow and then for environment they have to come up with three straight three weaknesses  by using the resources given to them at the company among other things they need to talk to other employees as well as explore all the facilities and other value teamwork will be some of them as they will have at least one partner way those are values fit into our idea of our orientation congratulations i completing your first day at route technology we are so excited to have you as a part of our team here i'll tag we believe our joy like the plastic pieces we make are more than just a sum of their parts together we are better thank you so they have a curriculum that they had in the past for what they have been doing for a number of years and number of items that they wanted to cover during that did you compare are you going  really they have over a thousand employees but every two weeks there is an orientation that varies from around six to ten people so it is a prize that is very repeatable and it's something that they were definitely used you know twice
well i actually think that that's incorrect because to to interpret the language that way you have to throw to the wind and all arrows point in terms to the age to the age of the child at commission of determinative perjurious diction now in this particular statute that is charged with in this particular transfer statute should have been read consistently with that and this is why what happen we have a juvenile issue and when you get into the transfer statute the one that's at issue here you only get into the transfer statute is the commission of the offense is charged a statute it's actually consistent with all of the other statutes read it and think well charging is the truth for transfer but that doesn't mean that it's the triggering event for determining the child's age for juvenile jurisdiction purposes but it's based on the application of the statute whether it was brief that way or not is clearly set up because that the district court sort of trying to steal his counsel and that's what i do have in the record and that reference i'm talking about is that for eighteen  rejected that claim on the merits saying that he failed to show prejudice so we actually have a ruling on the claim on the merits and then it references its because no one decision and i think that this court can very fairly read that a interpretation of the state law based on the clear language of that statute and i think they're arguing retroactive criminalization in the interpretation of that state law which sort of trends more vies it into a what's your response to the allegation of the assertion that as a matter of federal constitutional law the use statute should have  unfortunately i was simply direct the court against the fact that the clear language of the statute states and emphasizes on a date that it is charged that is fair warning that if an individual is charged with a crime after they are sixteen not so far fetched but it just wasn't the law at the time when the person committed the crime and that's basically what happened here and finally this is really i just want to remind the court this injustice unique and unique  been tried to fix before but without success thank you for your time thank you the case just argued will be submitted for decision and the court will take its morning
a life sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment yes it does and how we get to that decision is that the nature of the crime and the gravity of the sentence are at the defendant is convicted of but he did he kill somebody while he was drunk driving this case is much different and you need to look at all of these cases they say when you look at the gross just proportionality it's a very fact and you have to look at the facts of it and in the fan acts kenyata according to everybody no matter who you believe doesn't get about ten miles an hour no one is hurt except for the officer who gets shot but the other officer and in and causing them to pull out a gun and shoot you is a good way of getting yourself what's also a good way of getting somebody else and that's true and i agree with you on all of that but he received a life sentence for that and when you look at his pre crimes that's where you really have the greatest disproportionality this was man who served eleven months total he had two previous felonies but they were classics which in arizona is the least are you telling me that you can get they were for theft and possession of marijuana he didn't even have the types of felonies in arizona where he could be convicted under three strikes rule he was convicted under this statute that was only in for a brief period of time which was if you were on probation and committed a felony you get a life sentence and here's where the that's where the problem is if this didn't you didn't exist he would have received a five percent to mitigate or aggravate the sentence so we have a very disproportionate sentence and not only is that i mean i think a lot of times people say well twenty five to life for twenty five that set but that's not  right correct correct and the and that's the first aspect of looking at whether the sentence is grossly disproportionate and i'm into my two minutes rebuttal t the other factors are listed in my brief man i reserve my last two minutes thank y let me ask you a question counsel what would that the sentence been without the sentencing enhancement posing council made the comment was ten to twenty years that's a big swing do you know what he would have been if we are to take into account the juvenile history aren't we defeating the very purpose of the legislature in establishing a juvenile court which is not a court of record for an extraordinary sentence it's that it's the felony conduct it's the status of the defendant on parole for felonies that results in this extended period of time and that's all i'm sorry i don't i don't have any information that i apologize for that matter of legislative grace and for him to take advantage of that opportunity to reform and commit the offensive while on probation it really got undermined the whole purpose of probation and it undermines the integrity said my hands are tied i wish the prosecutor wasn't going to go forward with this statute i don't believe this man deserves a life sentence but my hands are tied and we asked the court to reverse
and the committee is adjourn
sheets but the actual