MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the regulations governing the section one hundred six process do not provide for a private right of action and identify the tribe as a consultant party secondly the program at agreement is a creature at the federal regulations governing the section one hundred six process and was terminated by federal department of transportation and accordance with those regulations does that not include the requirement for the program and agreement did  the program at agreement only exists within a one zero six process and must follow that process the program that agreement does not require offer acceptance or consideration and it can also be terminated at any time by any party that's not a princip to be further documents as to what specific language would be necessary to it actually think intent of the program matic agreement and the intent of the parties i also like to  out i just wanted to point out that the attorneys provision that we were just talking about a few minutes ago that was not raised before the district and the state would argue that that argument
so why are you starting their own to me actually have to decide the question of whether he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and offered to remove these packages drugs  from the police by making it look like something belongs to someone else by having a directive to down and then when the police act on that representation by the defendant that thing was to go to someone else the it from my guy that he asked me to hold secret he's he's committing a crime i don't know of any case law that would say there's something improper with that by the police by accepting the second guy deciding he's going to turn over package he was going to search in fact the dog identifying to be segregated and was sitting in the postal inspection service headquarters and there was just no risk that the one premises was going to be searched year after that understand the property that's being searched or do we want to know and be somewhat more into one strike different than that that we would still find good fake uncertain circumstances when the officer obviously didn't read  he's going to get it or you're not going to get it very different in a situation where you're asking for a warrant to search sixteen different things certain three rooms and a house the next street might give you some rather than the other and so if they don't really pay state of new hampshire in a federal prosecutor so i would feel better if i knew there were procedures that would just stop it that is probably happening again you know this is quite a caijing my rights opinions about best practices inside now really interested in doing that but i am interested in seeing that such mistakes don't happen and this judge assumption of risk language out of matlock applies very appropriately here this is a case where there is a fairly very loose series of able to consent so i assume you're arguing that person they want to be her purse a compact person has seemed reasonable expectation of privacy under all circumstances and that also doesn't  reason why expectation of privacy question is not close supposing roman who actually opened the package thinking she was doing in favor for her friend who is a path to go after the rehab center suppose instead of saying but we don't have either of those here we don't have any allegations that the magistrate made a mistake in that the law enforcement officer lied on the magistrate and were leaving have a partial description of what was actually searched thank you
and there are a number of cases that say that if the crime is still being committed in other words light if there is still light from the band's x actually during the commission evidence now when the courts never ever need it i mean like what you're suggesting it was unreasonable for him to get out if he wasn't part of this conspiracy this common criminal design he had multiple  and well over the years it is you know two men shooting at each other so let's talk about the cases that he's relying on and why we shouldn't consider them their way with two individuals in the car but there was an individual from another part of who shouted a racial slur the armed passenger in the vehicle shot out in that case there was in that specific case testimony by the driver specifically that that person was not aware of anything that was going to go line and that as a matter of fact they were startled by the shots rang out and there's no such evidence right that in the member of factors that has to be looked at in determining if someone is accountable for a crime the president during the period of the crime the presence of the son of the plane without any negative reaction to it really don't know exactly what stanton's reaction about what happened he said nothing at that point is there any any basis to argue that getting rid of the gun did this crime wasn't boring at that point scene had just been a different kind of a case where the disposal of the gun happened the next day there are several areas where i think that would be much easier to separate as well couldn't you argue that this is exceptions of illegal proceeds from the any negative reactions there is acceptance of illegal proceeds from the perpetrator the fourth this flight from the seat to the victim has been injured or killed so i'm not sure i understand the argument that flight isn't something we
t to this area fill this area this is an area that you know it will be any patio home units built in this area and then they're going to cut out some area here to bring the good dirt from here over to where they're taking out the bad our engineer marks the mine says look at this point he's ok with it and he leant company has submitted the grading permit signed the excess ma thirty forty years out i'm not sure how long here what you're building here to fifty you're building so you're probably right there just you know much of the juice worth the squeeze but sometimes they'll let you i don't know but get out of sanders already but sometimes authority will allow you to construct something over their line as long as there is a provision that if they have to get in there are things to you you have to risk so i just thought it is there no is there not enough but by bringing up moving the sewer line i was in the whole line of that retaining wall doesn't have to stay colin you can be there could be a bed in it and maybe just in large part of that towards the west a little bit of that player just again to mo second twenty sixteen including a developer error or states looking at it coming through a little bit of the trees being undesirable and trying to soften someone to slopes and use being able to utilize kind of movie stumbling around but now we're just saying that that may not be feasible when desirable because of what is left when you were moved inside the trees i'm only asking because you know you kind of went through that was there or thought you know a little bit like lack of experience to you know i definitely tried really hard throughout the process to save trees actually cost my soul time turn efficiencies trying to save some of the trees  add up the two extras that they're asking for so you can't see any real issues here standard six hundred feet as stated in their memo june third two thousand and sixteen
is house with a second floor of a basement according to google maps which i looked at in some of the old there's nothing to indicate they would check out the rest of the house to see how many people may have actually been living in this house  bedroom where his passport is found an insurance card and also with his clothing there's another man in the house but also the fact that he is convicted of possessing all of this evidence contraband hidden in the garage when there's no evidence that he didn't make any admission to live in this house that the stipulated out against from the defense is that he actually lived eight hundred fifty with kendall or at least received his mail there and that was what was on his driver's license also so  necessary to tijuana franks hearing you say this informant was on tested there was no information that the informant was liable and yet the information at the end foreman challenge the franks hearing the fence her emotion at all well basing it on what happened with the police officer going before the magistrate judge so the liability if not here there's no need to leave bills there's no gas bills cable t v bills not identifying this location like the facts of this case but that's the state can come up with to show that on this day the kind of knowledge the knowledge element for all of the contraband in the ship that is hidden  is that this caliber of ammunition is the same as a gun that's hidden under a mattress and we don't know what francis was put on office the same day and it's a common caliber that standing alone cannot possibly be enough to connect about the judge's ruling about the time frame the judge does of course clearly just based on the fact that it's outside the scope of friends but she does say that the approximation the time  suspicion is that it was impossible for him to have ben in at the address with the cia and later at evergreen when he was rested your position is and was in the trial court that it
asserted in response to a pending claim or pending case once the judgment has been rolled what do you find the counterclaim the kents well i think back to six six three six case number there is a counterclaim file there is second scenario is there is in jurisdiction a complaint filed and in a separate lawsuit a counter has to be a pending them counter claim filed in a as well in the same lawsuit and that if it didn't happen that way the second and third scenarios are inappropriate for a defense that you've raised here and that in the restoration proceeding or and or a remarriage to allow the judge hopefully to decide whether or not he thinks it's appropriate to state the case how can we rely on the former when it's supposedly is in the asserting me as you presenting yourself said awful counterclaim in judge paul joyce courtroom after hearing other mirrors i don't think that's corporate i think what is appropriate is he stays the proceedings until it is resolved in federal court and based upon it doesn't make any sense to read a statute that is in a foreign money claims as opposed to the recognition of foreign money judgments as being judgment judgment because it is in fact a judgment and not a play is that you're saying because you seem to be attempting to differentiate between claims and judgments you know yes and the state of illinois would stay these proceedings and kill a federal court rendered a decision and then it would seem appropriate for the trial for the state going to render a judgment one way or the other
with his attorney because there was an indication that it had been discussed is that correct that's exactly correct t m that once the matter was discussed there was still no formal demanded there had to be a demand for a anything he thought was wrong but i think that counsel believed that it was his decision to make like most decisions are a trial well the courts statement that he agreed with the defendant that at least it was his  discussion was in order was certainly part of the record too but in any rate when we move on for a minute to the fitness hearing itself an official conclusion didn't dr murray's opinion that the defendant was unfit and really boiled down to on the defendant's disagreement with his attorney's decision to present insanity defense instead of a reasonable doubt defense that is a difference in strategy your rational thinking and so affected him that he was not fit he couldn't communicate with his attorney this is a transcendent and the expert said that there was no other accidents that he could communicate and the getting to the truth when they conduct these various tests and the expert knows what he's doing when he conducts these tests and what his results mean he's learned how to interpret the data and you know with all due respect a judge would not  to the defendant and i guess it was through dr murray's discussions that he concluded in this report that the defendant or he included in this report a differen not guilty of attempted murder  record some additional information that you can mention that might have provided a factual basis for the trial judge conclusion on this part where the mom went back to her reports one question further and i'm quoting about his perception of his attorney case it was just too early to expect this defense witness to including each mention of the state's witness who testified yet you can't really keep someone into it actually testifying you can didn't raise the first issue in the order in the trial court so it should be way but counsel didn't know there was any confusion he didn't know that everybody wasn't following what was here i think he didn't know mean the judge there said she said i read something when trying to determine the attorney gets to decide where it might have been your right you do get to decide but it's just not that clear as you pointed out circumstances permit under wilson to explain the basis for the stuff in him and therefore since this information is not being offered to prove the truth of the underlying matters it is here s
you i just decided to give us a special treat now i was going to let you watch from the other end of the for you seeing as how you're my very special here more than twenty different cuts of meat if you include the turkey and chicken now you notice that we have them grouped if you learn to carve any one piece in each group you can handle everything else in that group you watch during rehearsal you'll see what i this group includes steaks and the only thing to remember about steaks is that when all bone is here should be taken to cut each month in the pieces so everyone will get a serving from each section where they vary in tenderness across several slices and then make a radical pot close to the round bone to free the spices really is the same as you do when you've got one homeland except that you're slicing hard as i'm only instead of the roast you leave the backbone in place for roasting then remove it before putting the roast in the plant lamb ribs are roasted and kyra's the same and i standing rib roast beef is the same except for centuries the carving of meat has been a fine art which has been practiced largely by highly trained chefs and husbands who have had enough interest and patience to learn the skills but now  a kind of us has devised a simple method of grouping the most common meets a method that makes it easy for anyone to learn to car this method of grouping the various meat is really quite simple all it is required is an understanding of the similarity between different cuts of meat for instance people seldom think of him as being anything alike yet methods for carving them are identical with the shank bone to the right is a carver first step in carving is to remove several slices on the side opposite the meaty section this makes a flat surface for the roast to rest on while carving with a fork placed in the butt end of the roast to hold it
the judge would exercise discretion but i wonder as the court to consider that it does have the authority to form on the basis of appearing in the record regardless of whether relied upon by the crowd or whether that's true but america judicial economy it simply makes sense to affirm our underground security record because the facts are not going to change i mean this is not like any other case of the cooks the case for example where you have somebody who file you know the after the trial but you know i fully anticipated these questions and you know that's the only building i can cite is that we're going to end up back up here again we're going to end up here either on appeal by mr meyer and he's going to be other cases look abuse of discretion is he got us in the judge who rule either way based on the facts because it's reasonable for a judge to rule this way or that based on a given set of facts of discretion when we get to the point where no reasonable job under those facts undisputed facts would have ruled that way and that's what i make this case is unlike any other case i'm simply asking you so again it's a fine point i'm not asking you to step into his shoes and say this is the way i would rule i'm asking you to do or the court does and that is to say whether if he had ruled that way on these facts which lot of time a lot of money because i just you know when i look at these fast which i don't see are going to change in any way i can't find a case out there like this where you know not only do you have you know no affidavit filed within ninety days you have months and months that go by a motion to dismiss is filed there's never any kind of an affidavit filed as to why any of this occurred those facts are not going to change you know other than that
suppose i say he the record isn't so clear that the reason he didn't actually has the discretion in the soldi because he thought deportation would not be a foregone conclusion suppose it's i read the record he seems to also defendant and that he came from a very good family and this was a very severe consequence and the judge was hoping that this wasn't going to happen to him that yet there's no doubt it will happen to him because that's the brought up that he wasn't given that opportunity and i'm mer i did not because i did nothing in this particular case that was going to be the kind of risk given the circumstances given what the trial judge said as sentences given that everything that this was not the kind of case that would lead to a harsh sentence he got under the grow the guidelines sentence as it was but it's still a very harsh sentence because it doesn't take into account he won't get the five hundred hour our drug treatment program he something else that the district judge had to say it is clear that in exercising his discretion the district judge was also concerned that reducing the an american citizen not facing deportation why should i sentence unknown citizen on the same facts to something less than x years because he also faces a civil consequence that is people attention that's the the risk that the defender will be deported you want us to reject that i would read it here it is if we reject that doesn't it reduce to say you know i have discretion to do it but it will always be unfair to exercise that you do have discretion to take deportation consequences into account so i'm trying to figure out and give them that that's the baseline and it might be error to conclude otherwise what is needed no arbitrary reason that the court came here but court found reasons every them the certainty uncertainty of deportation to too but from my concern is that those reasons when you articulate them seem to be reasons that would apply to every case and r there are factual circumstances but different every case and the consequences based on the country to which a person is going to be deported based on the political circumstances they're based on  crime based on whether they face consequences due to criminal activity gangs and whatnot so i think that it's very difficult to quit as he said if there is a or the fairness issue may fell out differently but i think the kurds able to exercise discretion here it certainly wasn't an abuse of discretion to decline to give that i mean credit in th deportation based on the fact the likely deportation even though i realize the thoughts a possibility of the one place i think that is one hundred percent correct and after discussing each of those three concerns of the court in debt the court then proceeded to summarize its position by saying quote all the reasons stated for the speculative nature for the difficulty of assessing the collateral consequences and for the fairness reason i'm going to decline to exercise my
had no power to enter into an agreement with with every sponsor that responded pay for it they had no power to collect it no power to peek over to the treasury and it does not have the power to  our lawsuit is not yours in order that needs to be challenged and we're late to the game challenging this or almost of yours and this comes out of the stream of  you don't know at the time that it happened that that th years later the supreme court says no the rose different they don't get to turn back to the agreement they don't get out of prison unless the supreme court specifically says this is a decision by the way  it's proper but it's i'm sorry you could say and you should say that an agency acting outside of this authority that action is good there's regardless of whether my colleagues interpretation of coke actually is correct it does not change the fact that mr geller filed the suit in the wrong court nearly three years too late under a statute that did not provide him with a cause of action all in an effort to collateral board of directors i understand of my calling has reasons why he believes that waiver is ineffective and we submit that those reasons are for those arguments are incorrect for a as explained in our brief but at the end of the day water that became final nearly three years before it was decided but that's only the st part of the problem i think it is it would be sufficient for this court to hold that the district court lacks jurisdiction to even reach the different our claim is not that the order is
made the ninth circuit quoted policy from the bureau of immigration appeals that it is the use of false documents to you to facilitate escape from persecution is entirely consistent with the claim for asylum  is presented with that have to do with dates and names correct that is correct i mean it's not like everything presented is without question the correct date or the correct name or missed but that's not our standard here for us to reverse here and grant the petition you need to show that it it's a very high standard that it we would be compelled to do it and so you really need to show  that the i j a that everything was speculative and that there you know it wasn't based on another interpretation if there's just two interpretations we're not at this particular stage we can't reverse this unless we it would not be possible for him to travel under his own name ok let's not use let's take your premise that he had to use a false passport to get out and he came clean with that at an early opportunity then he still has to prove who yes and he's got a birth certificate that's correct but the problem with the birth certificate the i j said is that the date on which it apparently was issued is prior to the date he so and additionally on the fact that it was photo copy and immigration judge had no problem giving full credit to the passport and reset with are also only photocopies in fact the government had them in the in the government's possession and could not produce them all th hearing it's my it's my picture but it's my brother's passport yes that is just an a then she looked at a photocopy they said well it doesn't look that way to me basically statements as to how the passport came to be and in his possession were incredible well what i mean that's what i'm getting at why she first of all she doesn't have that she's operating off of a photocopy that's correct and i just don't know where one who actually went to go see these travel documents in order for him to travel and live in the part china and lies and so may the fourteenth that he realized there became aware of these travel documents and even though the documents