MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
good morning and may have the court i'd like to begin this morning by addressing the claim construction issue the district court inserted into the meeting and claim twelve of the sixty seven patent words and concepts that are nowhere and so that would lead you to that or to something that happened subsequent to that our challenge is to that your honor the issue is if a different claim construction is adopted other than the rematch because we did not have a fair opportunity to are you under a different claim construction however if this court agrees with a b s is position with respect to the proposed construction that we have put forth on greatbatch an expert report because we believe that they were using an incorrect claim construction and therefore the topic came up at that time we specifically asked judge starr said if he was going to revisit the meaning of a the expert testimony and then if we agree that he was wrong about that and he abused his discretion then we would evaluate your analysis without those i'm not sure  made court the district court construction of a symmetry was not limited to the examples judge stark made clear that asymmetry was a measure of the capacitor as a whole and the agreed at the pretrial conference of this little lower means having two sides or have is that are not the same and not symmetrical and that construction wasn't limited to pins or passageways now a b s points to arguments for a bash made during the reexamin evaluated by constructing a hypothetical but for world before the infringement started here however despite more than a ten year history of greatbatch being the sole supplier of feed through filter assemblies to boston scientific unfiltered feed to work together with the filtering the price erosion plane was based on the filtering only which is a separate product separate price number listed under the two thousand and eleven contract agree just infringement is required for enhanced damages willful infringement only requires subjective willfulness or intentional eye knowing infringement and the court's decision denied re batch of it include everything because it's the underlying content with regard to infringement here's another trial on that for purposes of trying to get enhanced damages infringing alternative to six to seven which was the primary reason for the a g s granting a new trial and damages the elf jury with a purely paper invention conceived a month before trial that was i missing something
are within the context of the deceased veterans appeal and when i say within the context of the deceased veterans appeal i mean the real number the better and have the disease veteran had at the belief that we see is mere substitution bourse the procedure that i described is and have a good alternative means suspicion but the relief that we see is not just substitution the relief that we see first instance in the context of that here because the purpose of the statute was to avoid the delay of having to go back to the beginning i think it's very instruct there is something that i want to say before we get too far i mentioned before that in the briefing we had argued we had to write substitution in preparing for this of oral argument i realized th ere is a jurisdictional issue that makes the substitution question premature and that's because briefly the way this case played out was a mystery fire after twenty the scenario you just laid out for us is telling us that you made a different argument that you're going to raise a different argument to us than you raised to the veterans court a fact and court you were seeking or at least they understood you to be seeking just the right of substitution whereas you're telling us no that's not what i'm seeking i'm seeking the right to have the board here in the first instance without having to add i don't think that's entire where they dismiss the heel and they send it back to the agency original jurisdiction and i think it's very very important to look at the legislative history behind why congress and added this procedure and it was present because they didn't want to have to reopen the whole factual record and redevelop the factual record and this case he's got a separate appeal that only relates to his motion to or canada directed toward to reinstate the deceased veterans appeal and to decide the motion to substitute within that appeal within that number right now is that a separate we are out there goes back here what i'm suggesting is it goes to the the the the board if they have a substitution motion the order to cite is now in the context so that i don't have to wait that additional time then the version is books and she will she won't be entitled to acceptance of the movie to get back in the queue and say but if if we conclude in the first instance you're not entitled to substitution then and we're going to make you sit there for whatever time it takes before we get to you why not let them back in the queue where the was we've got too many layers too many delays too many too much too much procedure and that we've got spouses and dependents that are that are out there who should be entitled to get this decision and get it quickly and that's really what they were talking about so with that if the fact of substitution relates to that ability why why didn't why don't they just say that these substitution motions will be fast track while the word can't like this appeal they can't decide motion in first instance because they're not allowed to accept evidence that was not committed to the regional office and make decision on that that is not true that
evading a police officer which offense is a misdemeanor in the majority of states violates the eighth amendment's probably bishan on cruel and unusual punishment now the respondent unquote well that is not a quote from versus a style it is not the united states supreme court's gross disproportionality test that has been laid out in numerous decisions rather test from people from in really lynch which is the state courts application of its own standards for cruel or unusual punishments so a case like the ninth circuit cases where the california courts apply wheeler instead of that send in proceedings and therefore as this court has held numerous times eight for felony grand theft auto nine d for petty theft with a prior ninety two for battery ninety two for theft ninety three for burglary february ninety three possession from just drug paraphernalia july  ninety three appropriating lost property so temper of ninety three unlawful possession of of of a firearm and then in october and november of one nine hundred eighty three he committed three burglaries in one robbery the court has interpreted and that's why we need to go back to the supreme court's rulings and their emphasis its emphasis on the fact that you must use objective factors to the extent possible  doing in sacramento it's kind of sacramento is between los angeles and san francisco and bakersfield is my understanding of it that they do not prosecute all possible three straight cases as three offense is not determinative one way or the other the judge here decided to exercise his discretion not to reduce it to a misdemeanor i think the more important point though is the fact say it was a serious crime the last crime is not a serious crime as categorized by the california legislature has neither a serious crime nor a violent crime by the state legislature ye setting but i think that you do have to look at the factual i came here back and look what happened that night as he's now on a freeway at ninety miles an hour with his lights out through all the intersection that's true and no one was injured freeway but i think the point is that yes you do consider the current crime in the context of the person's criminal history that's the point of viewing in  all these things you know
order to focus in on what it is that the commission was in that area this evidence will show we are dealing with a simple right wrist watch the strike that lasted for a total of twelve weeks this in injury individuals then released at that time full duty and went back to work that all seven months went by at that point when you reported an injury if we words have therefore one conclude and infer it wasn't significant of an injury to begin with when we look at that actual treatment record he's in slight discomfort he's not given narcotics  merely given i hope and in the least with a diagnosis diagnosis of contusion and a sprain strain does he follow up immediately for additional medical care she could absolutely not three days go by and shows up work just want smart again this is something that he's admitted to and then they keep records i believe is the final note from april twenty eighth two thousand and six again you know so i'm better the priest is not bothering me at all the problem daughter the credibility although being weighed by the commission is not supported by the evidence the best way to the evidence here should be clear based upon those february to april treatment records in two thousand  twenty eighth well he's admitting i don't have any problems i'm not having any i'm barely using my brace i want to go back to work i know i can do ok i will let you do it and then he comes back at the time of trial and says well i was where he suffers a new injury going back to the times which one goes and works for himself during the time sequence of june to november of two thousand and six if we look again at the objective testing we have the ability that was not apparent that was not seen that was not diagnosed by anybody in march of two thousand and six april two thousand and six that didn't come about until seven months later therefore the opinion that he did the two thousand and six that's correct so it's our contention we're responsible for february third two thousand and sixteen accident up until the point about my mind of april twenty eighth two thousand and six anything after that date clearly unrelated  occurred while he was self employed you write sometime between june and november that's clearly there's nothing there's nothing if you can find something in the medical record during that period of time with the twenty second two thousand and six he can say i can't do the same or i'm in too much pain what's going on it hurts it hurts it hurts and he even testifies to a trial or soon after he started his new point and then tries to back
related to the mailing of a letter notice and they're really essential questions that are that arise one is if there is some deviation so to speak in terms of argument form or change of address there is a specific form it has nothing to do with the payment of taxes or deficiencies hello internal revenue this is my new address  it's not a mandatory form but there is a there is a form there is a form to my recollection you have been through life on letters or phone calls or whatever you can send that in the beauty of that is if you file that then there's no question   there was a notification albeit nobody knows where it came from but it's on the i r s records that there was a change of there as to henry virginia and it was recorded  communication that occurred between mr stone representing representing mr hire and the actual revenue agent that was assigned to the audit occurred in september where specifically she gave him directions all directions that the address was to be changed to henry or union the agent testified at the actual court trial and affirm that his record showed without question that that was a change of address then what happened is and this is what the government argues that by the time the government got it on  computer with respect to the aug eighteenth filing of the returns that the entry in the computer occurred in october two and a half months later and that's superceded sorry she received one or more of these notices of deficiency she received in one thousand nine hundred five noticed a deficiency but the record in the government acknowledges that mr hiler she never told mr iler about it for whatever reason so that's really not an issue in terms of where we are today terms of this appeal but there is one other two other important things one is that the issue of first impression before this address but it's not clear she couldn't remember and she didn't testify about it at all and he couldn't remember whether she had said by the way i filed a change of address form back in august and i'd just like you to know about that or whether she gave him a directive the administrative burden of doing it in every case where there might be some question but obviously becoming normal is there any legal impediment to doing that now there's no or any legal consequence if they send it to three addresses in one of them california so if the commissioner had made for their efforts and that's russian they would have come to the same result that occurred
already is going to rely on the circuit courts personal view of the property during this litigation specifically the circuit cool went on to the property indicated that a family with a rope tied box one ten and a half feet east of the chinese survey line existing railroad ties and fences there's testimony about those that have been knocked over parts of the things that have been taken down over time but the keep point in this case is there is still at the time
consistently applied i think that it doesn't really matter whether with nine hundred sixty eight or when it isn't the law clear that a case here or a case there doesn't undercut the the the argument i mean you're saying there has to be perfection you know for all time since the establishment of the rule there can be no deviations i deviation undercuts the argument that it's independent medical state ground well we're not talking here about simply you know once in a while an act of grace or something like that we're talking about decision of the california supreme court specifically that in rightly when it came to that have to do with obscenity yes it did so was that a constitutional question of whether the evidence satisfy the constitutional standard for criminal prosecutions well  said we're no longer going to follow that rule either and i think that that is an important point the other point i want to make was that after the the after  process that's what i refer to here they're saying if there's no evidence and then they go on to say that there's no evidence as to contemporary community standards not that's a distinction you know there's absolutely zero evidence route on appeal to the california supreme court so procedurally it was sort of an exceptional case where other than he's orcus the kalpoe scream court had no way to hear their kids and it shows it was an exception play yoyo with a district court and then it'll come up again seem to me that it makes sense to do what we're supposed to do right now well it would make sense to do that if the court which is why you wanted to go back you fraid of us well one  complication in california of the of the public the vision of the superior court in a court of appeals and all that this is so the only way it could get to the supreme court is in the form in which it got there number two the footnote does say that ordinary we would have would have applied literally in this case that's the way i read footnote eleven we would have applied mentally in this case had had it been a question of sufficiency of the evidence but here the record was completely devoid of any evidence at all of contemporary community standards so that's different yes it talks about the distinction between cases where there is insufficient evidence and cases where there is no evidence and they specifically say this is not a lindley case giannini is not a little a case because here it's a no evidence case
three dr sigler leases a twenty minute sedentary work she at that time is under a significant amount of medications and record reveals those medications were rotating speculation we can't leave that up to the conjecture of a vocational health specialist the last point i want to make with with all these time together it's obvious that medications of a player so i played a significant role  was related to her own her mental illnesses were possibly related to her inability to return to work no no contradictory evidence offered by the village as relates the nature and extent there were basically placement or appropriate under certified ational councilor guidelines although mr reagan's was there he was not told about the testimony or offer evidence otherwise and so again i would argue that
prejudice by suppressing vs veterans at trial i submit to the quiet that there was evidence of there was prejudice because it would have been a reasonable probability had we had differently because when we analyze or from the point of view of whether there's a reasonable probability that the verdict was reliable what you really have to do to get to that point is to consider the effect on the journalism where the jurors would have come to a properly answer that question it's important to understand what the theory of defense was the defendant was torched with perjury confessed theory it was that the question posed to the opening to trial and even at closing argument that the defendant had received cash at a sense city and all the witnesses testified to that the only witness that testif he understood the question raised both both business places if you take a close look at the transcripts he's asked questions back and forth about the two different entities not a const specific question that rod that gave rise to the perjury charge there is no you understand the government to say that is the the evidence that will suppress is immaterial and would not have had in the fact on the jury and the outcome of the case it's really not fair and it's basically stepping to the all this morning while working at g s n c in the perjury case that was the basis of the country case that he misrepresented he lied when he at was asked  question again this might miss that was the only witness to testified that he had received any money it's a sin city supercenter which was the basis of our theory that's why it was so important ok
following the grant of our motion to dismiss if it declined to accept our argument with respect absolutely unity primarily because it characterize the prosecutor's conduct in this case as administrative rather than advocated in light of the supreme court subsequent decision helps in this case the central aspect of goldstein that helps us is that at the state which is between what i would call prosecutorial administrative duties and general office administrative duties administrative duties that merely happened of been undertaken by a prosecutor such as hiring employees making payroll determinations maintaining the physical so annoying a judicial order isn't a is a prosecutorial while i think that both parties in the district court agree that that there components are two as to what goldstein says what i'm administrative duty wanted needs to be connected to the jewish judicial process or to the prosecutor's trial advocacy duties and to there's a possible requirement that it really involves legal knowledge and the exercise of related school so why isn't it simply an administrative or a ministerial task to make certain that a person who is unjustifiably imprisoned gets released i absolutely agree judge smith that it is an administrative tas that's the sole relevant aspect of goldstein goldstein also shows that we can't simply carve out the prosecutor studios to the administrative portion because that's what the plaintiff and goldstein was trying to do the plaintiff in goldstein was trying to say i'm not talking about the prosecutor not turning over brady or gately of material or trial what kind of administrative task or prosecutor undertake that wouldn't be covered by absolute immunity administrative tasks that merely happened all been undertaken by a prosecutor much as judicial administration judicial immunity would not apply would not be appropriate for absolutely they are one of the concerns that the court expresses in both goldstein and employers that the prosecutor not be forced to stand trial for the normal activities of his job why why because otherwise it will this dissuade people from serving as prosecutors otherwise litigants will be able to everybody around and serving as prosecutors that talk about neutralizing the the independent exercise of judgment on the part of the bras you're the person shouldn't be in a position where in order to perform their kind of situation that the posse reasoning behind employer in goldstein would mitigate against because you want to have prosecutors i would hope you would agree concerned about prosecutorial liability when they say something like all decide when the person gets out of that the kind of system you want us to to or i think you're i mean that it's pretty clear that we read goldstein differently that i read goldstein as having a second concern and that's with respect to the harassment prosecution with respect to lawsuits but maybe it would be helpful i simply don't i don't know what you just said i read
whole road was not only a road it was a way of life walk morning after morning to get there that final run to get inside before the bell stop clanging finally arrived there was nothing you could do any more after that you never thought about the body without wondering if he'd gotten there in time to pass the church to but you knew you were were doing this kind of thing crane was late of course you could have slept another half hour
now under the expedited removal order statute alienness not allowed to return for five years which sounds like congress contemplated a and break may continue as physical presence of five years can you address that aspect well you you know you're on the now the case is the closest thing to it and that was an exclusion under the former laws where the former state where the former former interpretations were used of casual innocent but they have not ruled on it ya know untrustworthy for these reasons i believe that my client deserves a full and fair hearing before an immigration judge to prove that he is cancellation eligible and he should not have been pietra made i do believe the been made and also discussed the fact that somebody with who has been removed whether under two forty proceedings or under expedited removal as well as administrative voluntary departure and all of those individuals are has been removed or accept an administrative order a voluntary departure is then precluded from reapplying for a number of years that intention would be the art of it if it's such an order would not identified specific procedures and authorized only only certain individuals to make the determination that any immigration or were officer and it cites to the expedited removal procedures this court clearly needed distinction in and the fact that he was expeditiously removed is not a fact at issue here it is a given it has been admitted so that six year period right then and there never would have provided him with any form of relief at that point in time anyway so analogizing it to somebody who has a credible fear and then gets him to two forty proceedings to claim asylum and additionally apply for cancellation of removal that would not have been the case here he would have had no remedy for