MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
final judgment was not issued until all the decisions were made and we're appealing from the final judgment right from the order i think you are a lot of the fact that the judge said it wasn't final but our rules say that if the government is entered it isn't that  well we we believe that given the fact that the case was that was valued at nearly six million dollars and they were awarded only six percent of that i think that the adjustment of the attorneys fees should be  i think forty percent might have been a better way to do it we need some concrete objective rule well the only the only the only thing i can tell this board is that we viewed the and at the end of the danny the court and through a judgment and an opinion order in relation to that which perfectly explain the reasoning behind the reduction and we did not appeal to relation to that because we understood it was well explained so i believe that the attorneys fees were examined by the court and they were also examined by the nd tier which was and do the terminations of the trial court that it was a violation of the state after sixty trial five witnesses and hundreds of pages of evidence that was a minute the  theme to be a violation i don't have a recollection that any state court order was and to or in relation to that i might be mistaken but i don't have a recollection to that all what happened was we litigation between apple nance and the president of the corporation mr martinez it was a retailer of a gasoline retailer and they filed a lawsuit to a big him from the gas station that's how everything understood that the president of the corporation on his personal capacity not as apple e this case violated the court order and the bankruptcy attorneys appeared in into rest of order and the mr martinez was arrested and he was sent to when i would detention center and i understand that same day
has to be at least one year i'm sorry it has to be more than one year and so the problem with this case is that under the really deals with the california  statute under forty seven defines it as a felony the abstract of judgment says that he was in prison for two years what was missing that well i agree with you but if you look at the  one of the health and safety code that was that issue and i had it and it depended upon whether he actually was possessing drugs as opposed to just revealing them we don't have that ambiguity under the statute and on these fa aggravated felony here we don't have that problem if we look at four eighty four and four eighty seven and we look at the abstract judgment and a story aggravated felony two years well i defining forms of staff well and we don't have the same ambiguity problem that in my view i mean i don't see what the problem is i hear your argument i just think it's different petitioner argued before the board that the crime of grand theft from person didn't require a specific intent to deprive the owner permanently however this court's decision in corona stanchions indicated that the the code saying that you could not consider that when determining whether his sentence of more than one year was qualified him as an ag fell and they said you had to just look at the fact of the underlying charge which was forty four that provision was overbroad however in this case petitioner was convicted under four eighty seven feet which by definition narrows what crime or what types of conduct would qualify as a crime of grand theft from analysis and find out what they were actually charging yes and i think when when if this court does go to the modified approach and looks at the charging document as well as a plea of conviction it seems that since the actual conduct liability that renders the actor liable as the same scale as the principle i was not a separate crime it's a it's like liability of a coconspirator under the has to be much clearer if you going back to the state courts and looking at their definitions of these crimes i mean and resist congress stated that you position it for theft for an aggravated felony under s f crime imposition
way they could raise it is through a wall fifty nine motion and you're contending that even if it was in even if we construed their opposition to the whole fifty nine motion as a kind of overtime motion and came too late i'm just trying to understand what rule forty four point three without them sixty one th i beg your pardon even though there's a final judgment until the point that you get paid ok now i understand your
ok the next case had a housing association versus the united states what we're asking the court to do is to acknowledge the clear error that was made by the trial court in concluding that it was because of hud then in two thousand and one two thousand and three despite those earlier denials in essence yes throughout throughout the period that doesn't that go to the whole dynamic of the relationship between at and during this extensive period and isn't and the facts or does that mean that having under the new rule has an obligation to determine the facts so that all that has to do is decide whether they want to agree or not because that is best discretion one party that discretion has to be exercised reasonably in order to place the discretion and the discretion is to determine the material that in order to determine the major difference presumably is not likely to get an adjustment and wants to essentially disprove what has already result and it's fair more rational calculations in that limited circumstance landlords to provide  temperatures in the building firing from week to week and month to month and then i will make a determination as to whether it's comfortable in that courtroom we wouldn't think that would work w are read in our grief and the trial court's decision should be your justified additional inquiry so do you agree factually that that was true in each of those years in some of those usual or the existing grants i had was charging its  ninety four amendments that the duty was imposed on the owners to obtain were instance in judge lets how held that the  so why isn't this a reasonable extension of the requirement that you show that a request for rent eight she said mid the simple request without the grand study and each time he hadn't rejected the requests for the rent increase she just chose not to submit will as the trial court found this was an additional burden placed on the owner and to require the rand study which costs  january just slightly before the sixty day requirement in ninety five that huge signature or increase your rent increase requests excused from making the request in two thousand and two as of that time thirty days later when when you made an additional decision not to make for a class why would that cut off at your anger or at least a lot of months of it are in the housing act for the rent adjustment there to be based on either market data or a reasonable it is your argument that the congressional findings were adequate to support any differential as it relates to non turnover or is it your argument that while some differential might have been congress dictate that it had that it one percent reduction or did congress simply authorize to make that determination up to one percent out of that work i believe that it was the secretary of  factor should be reduced to less than one the issue on the one percent to figure out who's one percent is it is it congress is one percent or is it
him the other option but you need to explain to us how that prejudiced and i still haven't heard any explanation how we assume that's the only thing the judge should have done differently how doing it differently here is a defendant who walked into court apparently was comfortable with the proceedings as they moved the pace and never said a word never expressed surprise neurons for a continuance never suggested to court had improperly what i believe is a misunderstanding of the transcript there's been some discussion about the court only give the defendant two options and if i understand that this is just in being that the court didn't permit the perspective that is then clarified and cleared up turns first to the probation officer and says was b s are provided yes they turn to defense counsel did you discuss it with your client
here you can take the microphone what the company but it might not my job because good i do my job no i don't know nothin she gave me every day but she has the power she are you know she c security services i'm sure your honour's are familiar with the papers submitted by each side i'd just like to make a very few brief moments and then you know in case your runners have any questions that be happy to answer them we'd like to very briefly just repeat that the circumstances set forth by the appellant don't support an inference of discrimination or retaliation first and foremost as as has become apparent by the argument that mr pierre just made his claim is based upon his perception that one of his coworkers was favor spain mail supervisors were interested in dating her and that falls squarely within the power more preference doctrine which clearly in this circuit is not a basis for a discrimination or retaliation claim under title you  anyone he received mornings other people receive warnings he admitted to the warnings that he received most of them were received before the date that he claims the discrimination against him or the alleged discrimination against him commenced  the only action taken against him that could legally be considered his adversus is germination from employment and his terminations from employment were based upon the events of nov eighth  pierre has admitted to conduct that was putting it mildly was insubordinate he admits to having left his post although instructed not to he admits to having  screamed at his supervisor and cursed at her over a public radio in a manner so that other employees would hear he admits that he approached at the supervisor's office in a manner such that people around there thought he was there to fight he was surrounded by department of homeland security officers that had to remove him from from the area and and this court him out this is unquestionably illegitimate  nondiscriminatory reason for terminating somebody is employment i i won't detain your honour's with further discussion because i believe that this is all in our briefs but if in case your honour's have any questions about this matter i'm pierre raised the question about having and having an interpreter here today that he made a motion for the court to provide one in the court and i did i yes i just like to point out in his deposition that he testified that he speaks english fluently that said page seventy one of the supplemental records so thank you thank you dear your time has expired thank you thank you thank you we'll reserve
oh gosh my family's been in the league for what now six generations and this year i'm the captain of my team the green leaves and every year we seem to battle the clovers they always come out on top but this year we're ready for a we're going to get that chair mock up because the cup the mother the father and the children of irish lives are pride hi my name sondra and i've been in the team for a really long time and whenever we play we have to go for the gold we are good enough to beat the closer going they think we can't do it think we can't we're going to shut up and let me talk and sh absolutely not great idea there was a bright new day the sun was shining it was the beginning of the new report period and it looked like we had everything going for us in fact we had everything going for us that's why i like this fresh start with change comes the beginning and with good story comes good projects i knew i would be able to do it just test what we were made of that was our goal it was our future and it was our oh man he's gon
abuse the discovery process they can hide information they can refuse to produce documents they can refuse to appear for discovery and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it as there is no every party you know  discuss rule thirty seven generally and never raised the fact there wasn't a specific sections like that if you look at their expectations to the actual award of amount of damages in two thousand and two they never raised their either they've never raised that issue before it got here to the court of appeals but if i may pick up on your question trifles for the district court in any respect no they never raised it once and anyway in the district court the first time to raise it was in a brief in  in the worst imaginable and have a free ride because the insurance companies paying the fees and the defendant has no obligation to repay those fees now what he says about gene roush is different than the talking about an application for attorney fees we're talking about sanctions i won't go through what every judge found the stonewalling the structure of justice the fraud on the court and the supreme court and this circuit has made it court case when we point to the part of your side of this case that concerns me and you can respond to it yes i think it's appropriate that you know  bills the other side gets a chance to look at them and that adversary proc process aids the court in determining whether the fees are reasonable were actually stand applied to this case of opposed to another be a mechanism for your opponent to actually review the billing records in my correct so far yes if you actually asked for a protective order to do that so that the billing records could go to his office and that he and his client in the office could look at occurred what the magistrate judge did was say i can look at these records and i can look at these time sheets and i can tell what's reasonable and this is reasonable and here's why is that what happened he looked at my affidavit according bills but we don't want to look at them without our client if that's the argument that they're making here or we'd like to look at these bills before you render an opinion or we'd like to be heard on request for a protective order they did nothing when you look at their one and
that the district court did not grant summary judgment on the fourth amendment claims on the eighth amendment claims even while the court had noted that they had no substance to them because the claims for  jail in the jail setting and the security of the jail it's been recognised as a legitimate interest of those who are operating the jail so in the instance of the first incident and that there were five says it was just a reasonable for them to not listen to him explain that he was not participating in the disturbance that he admits was going on that reasonable the standard doesn't that it was that it was unreasonable to not listen to him but instead use force to control the entire situation in the jail with the deputies were trying to control who were really think that order and so the fact that they used force against all of those who were present in the very room in that situation doesn't make their behavior the unconstitutional well he'll he alleges that he was resisting that he didn't do anything to physically resist he was just saying i don't have a place to go now i know you disagree with that characterization but use in your speaking generically reasonable force but do you think that someone if hypothetically a freak pretrial detainees is in the situation the white house doesn't resist tries this line do you think that that officers  for there to be a bright line between those who say very who say after the fact they weren't participating in the protest to being in the midst of it but in that situation they have achieved you know just in keeping that he's in jail area secure infirmary there i i think that given that this orientation he really is unable to testify about what was going on around him he's unable to contradict the belief and the testimony of the deputies food good deal credit that testimony that's up to the jury not up to the difficult or this court to make factual findings of whether mr hamdan is could remember whether for deputies violently threw him to the floor beat him kicked him another deputy comes on the scene with the flashlight and try to repeatedly against the back in the shoulder causing massive injuries to my client requiring him to go to the clinic again as a dish a court found every single material fact is disputed district court facts constitute sadistic and intentional conduct without any justifiable government interest you can be no reason even in the twin towers facility for a deputy sheriff without cause without resistance without injure the point here when officers froze over the ground is not resisting doing anything to provoke an attack and brutally beaten him there's no mistake the fact there's no as a matter of law finding that the conduct of the accurate if the jury believes my client we're going to win and get a substantial monetary reward because mr examiners was brutalized without cause they believe the deputies will certainly lose that my client was the aggressor and was provoking and was awful and the leader
to the whatever the property yes the receiver only stands in the shoes of capital to stock the black letter law it's the rule of bankruptcy law that the bankruptcy estate is the state whatever legal title king found that the key issue was not title but was control this receiver was appointed as receiver not only for capital consultants but all entities that  of section four point four it states that the manager in this case c c l would not have the authority to bind the company as to following matters of the first obtaining approval by vote of the majority of the members which since there's only one member would be the plumbers and that includes a sailor transfer substantially all companies yes and otherwise they could not have sold the buildings without permission of the office right but it goes on to say that any matter submitted to a vote of the but the converse which the palmers assume is true that is that although capital consultants which controlled and managed the property couldn't sell it without their approval under section two point seven which has limitations on powers of the members it says members who are not also managers so now are referring to the plumbers shall not have the authority or power to act as each and or on behalf of the company to do any act which would bind a company with respect to any third party or to incur any expenditure of respect to the company for its property so the converse that the plumbers could have sold at any time without c c l consent is not true either and the distinguishing factor there with the fact two or more investors were in the property so the plumbers and it just so happens that those are the properties that the planners don't want and the plumbers would like to draw the distinction in safe we've got a limited liability company where we're the only member then you don't have the right to include it in the estate even though you control the property and even though it was an investment made through  l investment money in there and they are the owners of the l l c as the partners are the owner of the one second to protect l l c why again why shouldn't those assets be treated similarly and the plumbers are content to let the these bad properties which they have interests in the part of the estates of those losses can be spread amongst all the clients but the good properties in which they happen to be there were several on there were several numbers in that as as an agent for the plumber organ we were i think sigh yes probably as agent i'm not really up to speed on those i know that we made a distinction between hold title to s c or as an example i was well thought limited liability company would still hold title to a limited liability company is made up of members in my understanding is and on the title well i guess what i'm trying to understand here is it does seem to me and i'm just looking at the numbers that the plumbers are happy to disclaim any interest in losing hope we let you talk long enough
a conviction becomes final on the happening of a variety of things that don't include the sentence review commissions determination why aren't those at least pretty relevant toward our finding that this is collateral well  is in fact part of direct review section twenty two or forty one because according to the parties defendants in rhode island cannot raise any challenges to their sentences on record appeals so the only time  point where the montana supreme court says you this sense review commission can't look at the whether there was legal error and look at the equity of a sentence and to me sort of going back a really long time he is corpus type existence which are of course the archetype of collateral not direct review are based on equitable  legal principles and so to me the fact that in addition to the montana supreme court saying it's not a direct appeal they're parsing out the legal and the equitable nature of the reviews that's against your argument that this is direct not collateral well i don't think so and i think that mormon is distinguishable that it's distinguishable because of the fact that talks about the post conviction program and can you know under post conviction proceedings all you can basically are you is ineffective assistance of counsel you can argue things like that he can not bring up you just can't bring up whether in it's equitable given other sentences and other general equitable principles right yeah but those are all legal questions those are little questions of the supreme court  mean equitable questions would a billet questions are reserved for review by the sentence review if there aren't it is there any claim that you would that are that a person might very for example in this case we had he we argued the one of the things we argued was a pre sentence report writer who made it recommendation of forty years with when the conviction is specifically analyzed under montana law secondly the equitability of sentence cannot be reviewed ever in the state of montana except after having the petition for service review that's the only time in federal court this core court of appeals will review the reasonable this of a sentence under carty other of these so there is a directory few of the result us but in just assumed as just because insta talked about in the leak case it was judicial assumption without consideration with the analysis and so forth and so i don't think rogers  this case is submitted and with that we are adjourned for the day and the week this court for this session stan