MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
before been reliable what was found this year also who purchased drugs from him i'm sorry to see it also made a purchase that was one of search took place before that affidavit in the district court's opinion was actually a wealth of information connecting joshua horton to drug dealing him and shot not just the test the information from two confidential sources actually purchased from him but other information growing out of the willis investigation what turned out to be crystal clear but the of that yes one which recites specifically that she did provide information to other trips that have been made one that were correctly identified a person going off cape to purchase drugs result in the seizure of sixty nine thousand dollars so she'd been clearly shown to be reliable specifically with knowing when trips were going to be made and identifying where they would be headed and where they could be found to twice before this stop she identified particular trips they've been surveilled and followed and the o found that they checked out with what she said so she says the third time i think another trip is going to going to happen they certainly can follow that information and then as your own as pointed out the surveillance to check that out once again placing the car proximity to the  and this is in excess of the information from the custer probable cause in this court's recent decision and white and does in some sense you can bypass a lot of what follows by simply saying they could have conducted the search from the outset based on the information they had but if there's any because i think that this is clearly not really before the court in light of what the district court said that it wasn't relying on the calculations would you argue that none of the arguments have merit individually also there's no one point we didn't make in our in our brief because there's many arguments against the sentencing challenge that in fact he asked for a quantity of in in his it sing memorandum a quantity of pills that would result in exactly the same g s r relied upon by the district court hundred seventy one thousand pills that would have resulted in not a not
called presidential decision was in the books for more than forty years are the time no other circuit court and at the time there was high there there was also the th circuit and p by trying to be that that horse by claiming well there was still a problem and that you know all of that may be true and i understand what you're saying until the prior case there wasn't the kind of focus on this but it doesn't i understand what you're saying what you're saying is that he joined the issue with the merits of you know the removal that the removal of the basis for the removal but you're not you're not arguing appear nothing in the records supports that as mr big petitioner just acknowledged as well no and at no point during the course of the proceedings before the immigration judge or before the board of immigration appeals did he ever a contest that the absence of the date and time information in his mr appear was rendered at the you know that particular document to be defective for any purpose so i understand him to be arguing though that an objection at the time before pereira was decided would have been futile under the well established law of virtually all the circuits that's correct your honor but as this court recognized in ortiz santiago anyone could have stood in the place in the shoes of mr pereira in other the complaint that was made before the agency what mr bowden ski complained to was he was tried brought three different grounds of removal were brought before him one of them he conceded to he indicated yes he was subject to removal under that ground the other remaining two he did contest which is why throughout the course of the proceedings before the immigration judge the government met its burden by putting forth the requisite evidence and testimony to be able to establish that ground as as the agency scheduled it he applied for every form of belief for which he believed himself to be available he was represented by his children counsel throughout each of these proceedings and there's no indication that there is any sort of  manner in which he was precluded from presenting his case in the manner that he wished to have presented it he never missed any type of hearing there's no there never been an allegation that not met the requisite hardship level that the statute requires but that in addition to that even if he had to leave the immigration judge found that he would have to night in the exercise discretion in light of the finding of marriage fraud so and in  in that way your honor mr that is simply does not qualify for the relief of cancellation of removal and to the extent he may be alleging that he has additional new facts that arose subsequent to those proceedings that he's presenting he presented newly to the to cancellation of remove all he did submit with his in the completed application and i believe the birth certificates of for both of his children and in an affidavit that was dated two thousand and eleven which seem to have been
these root hairs here greatly magnified are important to the life of plants through them water is drawn from the soil and into the root square inch of leaf surface now let's look inside the leaf exposed to direct sunlight is the upper skin or epidermis under this transparent surface is a layer of cells like palisades in this palisade layer is concentrated most of the leaves green coloring matter the small green bodies here under the palisade layer is a spongy storage layer just above the lower epidermis here we see in cross section a storm are or pour through thousands of such pours air dioxide gas enters the plant and makes its way into every living cell through the same pours part of the water drawn from the soil and scapes into the air and up water is retained however to permeate every cell of the leaf meaning putting together or building with the aid of light more oxygen is produced by the process than is used by the plant this oxygen is returned to the air and is the oxygen we breathe without which we would die of suffocation and what is built from the simple material it's something not at all simple by complex chemical reactions the plant makes a complicated molecule and bound in this molecule is the energy of the sun this complex molecule formed of simpler molecules drawn together represents a food a direct source of energy for living things it takes an infinite number of molecules precisely arranged to make just one crystal of this food can sugar this crystal is sucrose the other sugars glucose and fructose were probably made first in the plant what happens to the sugars which the green plants make the sun's energy contained and this food is required first of all for the plants grow for the formation of stored in the stock of the the food which the green plants make is their direct source of energy it enables grasses to grow tallest trees like the bamboo in some countries they attain a height of more than a hundred feet energy can be destructive to other plants the strangling thing wrapping itself around the great liable might finally kill the older tree the wood of these great trees is derived from the sugars made in the leaves this food then is a building material as well as a source of energy it was a building material for the oldest and largest of living things the giant sequoias of california years old and more than three hundred feet high is the other source all in the earth originated from plants and animals and by code it represents the energy from the sun stored in sugars made by green plants which grew millions and millions of years ago
the only comparison to determine under a tainted this whether it stands out from others is a stand out from comparable cases independent actions that may have some have if that were all the district court sat on the district i'm that your allegations weren't plausible in other words you have a very weak case maybe suggesting that it was for us you are my answer to that is to follow on in delaware but that's not enough for an independent  and if we take that is a given or at least not abuse of discretion then why it least after they filed a response or their motion to dismiss we you're not obligated if that were the view when you are now being presented with that finding in this opinion or in the earlier opinion on the merits i didn't hear either is the immaterial ality finding in this opinion here or the earlier opinion dealing with this is never wrong i think when you sit in a council table be good not to try to communicate with the court while your body language that you have to sustain for the argument that mr downer is making those now i know how you are rolling your eyes and making me tell you the one thing that concerns me about the district court's opinion here is this notion that there were less inflammatory ways of dealing with the situation i mean if in fact or had been of all allegations here and they decided that they had enough they didn't need anything else they were wrong but they they did what they thought was due diligence so the mere fact that they would help first point the district court seems argument that this was a drastic tactic and i don't see anything drastic about it it was really their only tactic to get the first question is why i don't think i don't think it is if you have the right to go to the district cour a hypothetical that assumes you lose on that we find his finding a black possibility with was sustainable we find that he didn't make any other errors the only error in the district court opinion on this hypothetical is that there's a court said that there are other ways of approaching this that you should have followed and that's not correct as we we find that one here what do we do action if you don't find it in this record improperly it explicitly used this rejection separations against us after finding that they were extraordinary efforts to make sure that we did the
it's like a dance class gone
a corporate manufacturers for speed resolution effect and news consumers consumer goods in this case is a recreational vehicle that was disclosed to be used for a principle residence for people during their retirement belief on behalf of late word that this motor home was ever repaired that is the predominant issue because during the course of those dispute resolution warranty take claim which is almost entirely
infringement in which the direct infringement is a use by t s a which is the united states so this is a suit that alleges a use by the united states doesn't get into the question of whether fourteen ninety eight  understand it that that the setting up of the testing so that the united states could look at it and say ok we like this one we don't like this other one that that was required by the contract not even if the resulting technology once accepted might not have been the only possible technique to comply with the solicitation so even that i don't think you're disputing would come within the authorization  systems complaint is with the subsidiary that spits two levels down there is nothing in the complaint to suggest that the subsidiary was acting as an agent of the parent company there is nothing in the complaint to suggest there was any sort of fraud or other d it just never was raised by appellant here and in any event your honor the only argument reason appeal with regard to the rule forty one issue is that somehow the voluntariness missile their first case that argument here that's clear from this court's decision in the lead case in the south for case which let's just assume that we're interested in getting it right whether or not it was right do you have a comment on correctness of where we are now yes your hon in the proceedings in had dodd mr mason arguing on behalf of mr todd argued that that very first dismissal which actually affected under rule forty one a one they are now changing the story  completely proper to hold astronaut and its owner to the statements it made to the lower court in that case is now retroactively trying to change the procedural context of that case so i think in terms encouraging the separation of the first actual aster netsuite into can you tell me anything about that it is up for the record your honor but more pro trust counsel apparently
the picker center talked to adam about you about your classes and how you should connect a little more about so it's b it's very birthday and it's very very good to be back and iii think you are for the today you you know i have to warn you diego that first of all were enormous ly proud of you that you're in this role and that you are doing it it was such an open mind remember when deng xiaoping was asked if he would allow more chinese to emigrate he said well how many would you like and i'm thinking that perhaps your invitation to sepa students might have some of that quality i'm sure we'll find many who are deeply interested in in and i would be very much welcoming the chance to canvass that concept with our students and see if they if there is interest in capability to be helpful to you so thank you so much for that  e has brought together an exceptionally interesting and talented group of people who've come from brazil many as well as our own faculty to come together who don't always come together even our own faculty  and so and i i'm particularly pleased that we were had this chance to talk about the plan at the beginning of its life you know after it's been thought through but at the beginning of its life and that it's  what i learned today that it's comprehensive but it's also flexible and that it's operating in an environment where policymakers are very mindful of the fact that things are changing very quickly and if you land too quickly on a formulation you can have adverse effects for the poor you can create rigidities that you can have difficulty overcoming you can put governments and gridlock with each other different ministries and and you know that what other countries are advocating may be good for them from their own historical a experiencial contexts but may or may not be good for brazil and so i think that kind of even when you're incentivized to think about moving to gdpr or something else that is imposing externalities on you already and you share some of the same concerns which we all share about privacy and security so each country must come up with their own formulation looking you know and so i appreciate that you're doing all of that  in such a thoughtful way we had a fascinating discussion about china which i also appreciated and i think in a way i walked in with the expectation that they were thinking about productivity effects but not thinking about a comprehensive model and in fact you know they've just been extremely careful not to over regulate in some ways even as they have been actually collecting all the data and making it available to the so it was a privilege for us to be a venue for this to i hope we can build on it and i thank thomas again for organizing and particularly renaldo and and our distinguished guests who've come so far to participate with our own faculty so thank you so much
sided gender advocacy department leading to direct and indirect violations of the st amendment the th amendment title seven title nine and state to direct and indirect during injury time damages stonybrook knowingly east coasters for student groups such as women in science and engineering or the multicultural women's alliance of these cultures which they when they where are the groups are meeting he says that when he's on his computer he receives emails offering for example hygiene products but none of this amounts to the title nine standards for a hostile environment hostile environment frame which is an objective we hostile or abusive environment that is one  permeated with discriminatory intimidation ridicule and insults sufficiently severe or basic to alter the conditions of education higher then moving to the capital seven claim has not alleged any adverse employment
that under the categorical approach you can't possibly be covered there is a right under the categorical approach a lot of fifty one is overbroad and the court must turn to a modified category or modified approach and under the modified categorical approach in this case is your person without that person's knowledge and with you tend to commit a crime of violence under eighty eight forty one piece of it or if it was given to a minor which is a sixty one day one and therefore it shows that each of these three offenses under the federal law require an additional element that's not required under eleven three fifty one which demonstrates that the government's suggestion that well is this drug under california's statute could at least be considered an analog under the federal  there are steps in slews that are covered with in california law that are simply not covered within the federal statutes and therefore make the california stature overly broad and force the court then to turn to a modified categorical approach you believe that's a that's a full answer to the some dispute in our yard i do i do know that it is in fact i think it's probably fair to say certainly for my purposes i never look at them ok because there are no facts that are cited that allow any basis for determining whether the case in controversy before the court is the same as the one here so at least for purposes of your office at least this judge and i don't have my colleague feel but they're just of no worth at all because we but does the defense have or is the defense correct and a chemical sense about the difference between these substances i don't i don't believe they are here on earth i mean i don't know the things missing describe what th even pronounce the names but they're all on page twenty three of every if they're considering their lives than any thirteen would allow you to include them in any forty one possession with intent and you know that the defense claims that they're not analogs what your response to and that they're all included for consumption in that they actually are specifically listed in the code of federal regulations and i you know there was no reply brief filed in this case to i mean i have to stand on the arguments that we made and if you're listed in the analysis though wouldn't you agree that whether something is categorically a crime of a particular nature that the wording other than the controlled substance part is done a question that isn't the reason the same  government also states that adam arms are to be treated as as a federal controlled substance because of section eight thirteen but as i mentioned earlier in thirteen has the additional requirement that must be shown that it was intended for human consumption
yes that's correct why isn't that in itself and i believe that probably that's the point at i mean the point you said here what is it is importers hadn't shown up the commerce department would have gone for th arguments made in response that governments are permitted to soften defense including the fact that there is contrary evidence on the record and determining whether exhaustion is appropriate for the court to decide whether against the two main purposes r point is that we set off our argument regarding the financial selection that the justice department the commerce department to justice department so you have exhausted we responded to that in our  we believe that is the way the procedure works here exhaustion is not a decision made by the department it is a decision made by the court the court has the discretion whether or not me that it's been used retroactively every other proceeding that's been identified here and i don't see much of an explanation from commerce as to why the new labor rate methodology was applied methodology there really was an element of administrative experience that drove that decision it felt that it didn't have to go through the process of looking in so many different countries and then  entries and the commerce department said we can work with a single country but it is congress never rejected the idea that more was better than fewer and which is what ms told you that saw it as one put not but never never disown the notion that multiple countries provides no interest let's say that this big few days after they file their loss if they make an announcement that we're out of the i'm worthless we're not going to produce anymore we're not going to export anymore it's inconceivable to me that that company would continue to have standing to litigate under those circumstances so what is different than that scenario and one that actually happened whether that would have happened has since hardware has not said we're out of there forever we're saying we don't export anymore we don't produce anymore and what will it take to get us back in business they identify such speculative scenarios that it there's so much case law on this and the supreme court and other ni that you're standing ready willing and able to import him back you want to go back into that war business you say you may possibly consider it someday if you get a good result well i think that's a little bit too i mean they're saying they're considering
states we really are in this because this community members we come together make things like this happen we take a church that's been serving the community generations generation after generation and we say to ourselves listen we want to make sure that our downtowns our storage structures remain central to our sense of play and what makes the lawn light different from other communities across the country is
the court did not rule out the existence of equitable tolling in these types of cases and in fact it because in that case this court without prejudice right now it was interesting which i found interesting was that although the district court had considered before or didn't consider dismissing without prejudice and tell them oh vs long addresses that issue is that it's not really without prejudice that once you dismiss the case the statute thirty nine fifty five cited page eight in my opening grave where the problem with the statute of limitation comes because of something the court does that is an counsel had calculated the statute of limitations and pointed that out forcefully to the court that the without prejudice factor would not really exist but the request was made to stay in a bay and the court either granted that which it certainly had the discretion to do nor did it advise appellant that that it should he should consider the fact the statute of limitations may have run which under player versus ford the court does not have an obligation to do at this point but he should have given given the of talent the option of dismissing the  doesn't claim and void forward if you have the problem i think not contemplated under player a versus court in terms of the courts duties that while they may not have a duty to do certain things here they did something a proper method of killing the statute of limitations and b because it was the court's own affirmative of conduct which i believe that it felt would everything that could be expected of him to try and preserve his claim in the district court and should not be faulted because he made a request which the court didn't grant not because  just you have a right it's a claim or because i think that it's accorded to form him that your statute of limitations may run but that's up to you whether you want to dismiss or that this may or may not be without prejudice than misleading the court by misrepresenting the facts as they occurred in the case and stating that when it went to quinn he came back the second time that he wanted to reinstate a state petition and the courts there their position was never stated in fact the court