MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
in order for your legal argument to apply there has to be an undisputed finding that he had schizophrenia and service and although there are some references that like it maybe impede proceedings there's also references to be exams and neatly after and at the same time these proceedings were occurring that diagnosed him with a personalities disorder which i think you agree is not comfortable and so what i what i don't understand is how we get  all these competing factual diagnosis is and ultimately the v a in the i think eighty two decision saying he doesn't have any has personality disorder how we get over that because don't we have to have an hard time getting to the actual conclusion that you're relying on because does it mean that any diagnosis and service if the friend yeah is controlling forever or you know sometimes these things happen and you know these these kind of illnesses are very hard to diagnose it is diagnosed with schizophrenia by one doctor goes to another us but says we're not sure let's follow up and goes to another hospital on th how does how do we get a result as a matter of law he had schizophrenia and service wind itself and he didn't it is a complicated question which is why the regulations exist to help veterans recruit three or three and three stage it's i guess it's ready if you look out and say well even though there are lots of competing diagnosis as if it hadn't if there was one in there that's enough to say that regulation should have applied and then i there that these kind of illnesses are very very difficult to diagnose and perhaps there's been some hostility to diagnosing certain of them in the past anyway why don't we just see this as a presumption and have it in her function and if the person comes out of the military and a diagnosis of schizophrenia then that regulation is and the v a has to do more to show that he doesn't  and act in this case gauges and based on the different noses that were before it that there was a legitimate question about what mr r and goes condition was whether
you're here in person that case is listed as number four for the day us against you shockey appeal number nineteen days thirteen a waiter we said with mr stevens no yes mr stevens can you hear us yes i can you're all right thank you very much thanks to court staff and to everyone for the flexibility to deal with the situation  stevens why don't you go ahead with your argument on behalf of this shocking all right whether the district court specifically identified violation of the criminal law and actually found the element d i certainly understand the court's holding in the united states sources trying to chase which says that use of a controlled substance will support an inference that the defendant possessed a controlled substance and so if the court finds that the element  language the city vince yes just even swiss is such families could i ask you where we are where is mr shockey in those fifteen months at this point when is when is he scheduled to be  finished with that sentence he's very close to the end of the sentence he's currently in a halfway house for wanting to and i think that he report on page five that's docket and seventy it is a class it's a felony under indian a law to possess methamphetamines punishable by more than here so the probation department tells the district court that the positive drug screens for methamphetamine clearly supports an inference of drug possession a level six felony the government confirmed at the revocation hearing that that's a felony under indiana law and the court can infer possession as well to say i'm a little mystified by some of the speed because what's the point of distinguishing between possession and use your on i think part of it would be just how it's classified under state laws depending on the drugs methamphetamine is undisputedly a felony for possession under indiana law we cited in our cases in our brief i believe that's for sure felony under wisconsin and so here we have a situation where the parties don't dispute or didn't dispute at the time revocation that indiana punishes this is a felony mr shockey didn't make any arguments along by pathetically that the court posed an trotter that maybe could get a contact high for marijuana or something like that i don't believe you can get a contact high for methamphetamine use i've never heard of that certainly mr shockey didn't allege that he also did admit that he used methamphetamines on multiple occasions including multiple and what we do have is a specific condition of supervised release which coheres vets they use of controlled substance subtle but important distinction because the guidelines make that distinction between you and committing a new crime and so anyway that that's what i can get i have to say in response to mr whalen sorry thank you very much mr even did you take this on by court appointment yes i did ok well you have the thanks of the court for the assistance to your client the end of the court our thanks to the government as well in the cases taken under advisement with that concludes the court's calendar for today and the court will be in recess
and june two thousand and three the board denied it in january two thousand and four mr gephardt never alerted the board to the fact that he had married a female united states that he could have at that time and alerted the board file i do believe that but i do believe that that we should not reward is going to round up all the men and give the board an opportunity to take its leisure as it does many times and still at six months or eighteen status in the strong petition i gree with that but i'm still puzzled but we have two agencies or two branches here the executive that each made contradictory findings and that we haven't tried to harmonize me that as the attorney for the united states you have an obligation to help us do some justice here and really what we're suggesting to you is under these circumstances given the fact that we've got two different  apparently irreconcilable irreconcilable findings that you should agree to stipulate to reopen and let the b i take a look at this and resolve it and then we would have something to review but you just
and here is something extraordinarily special to the fans in holland that the audience out there time of time is always refreshing every year but this year is special because of the bands and the groups who are here today particularly this saturday of dawn of time we've got the book tusky high school steel drum band just saying that no i've got to get this concept in my head first of all you are my name is barry bennett i'm one of the band and over the years we kept purchasing more and more and more and getting bigger and bigger bigger and more and more kids and so on and so forth not just your man your high school have me i just need a regular man oh yeah we've got a quite a large program we have six hundred kids in the band program six through twelve twelve grade yes we have conservations jazz bands marching bands the whole gamut and of course i still don't know are you a drummer yourself i am a production is myself ok graduate from central mystery university with all your passion and you were really came up with the idea for this trailer yes well that was kind of an accident we are in san juan doing a caribbean tour with a steel band and we happened upon a trailer as we are walking around and we got back home and we pulled up on line because we thought that trailer looked very suspicious like a steel drum trailer and indeed it was it was a double decker trailer and so we went back home to task and we created and made our own trailer about seven years ago this particular trailer those really designed was specifically designed for new orleans parades to be out on a mardi gras every other year we've been to mardi gras seven times you fill it up it's just it's just a blast so this trailer is very tall and it's even taller than what you see right now during mardi gras lot in the summer we have anywhere between fifteen and twenty performances every summer and you can find out where we play we typically like to stay up in northern michigan because it's so beautiful up there in the summers but we travel around and come downstate once in a while as well a compliment she was a teacher also you must be i mean your teachers are you're busy at the school yes but you put a lot of extra time in this band long with the other band it is very time consuming but it's kind of a passion that we something people think we're crazy and we probably are half crazy but we enjoy it the kids love it the kids really love it they love the getting out and playing and being in front of people and that's just it's a great experience for  and in your high school being in the steel band is probably an honor for me personally yeah it's not easy to get the top band but we start still drumming in the sixth grade and by the time to get up to you know the juniors and seniors they're getting pretty pretty darn good
brilliant casualties typical of the civil war they were collateral damage targeted intended victims prosecution looting the the petitioner two uncles who were killed his fathers uncles killed his father who was arrested and tortured for twenty days his father's grandparents who were murdered after he escaped and the government being looking for him and petitioner past persecution based on that and this record to your client yes so then you have to seems to me your theory on that is that that alone constitutes a well thought out of fear of returning without the presumption of past persecution that's on other theory seems to me is that there was past persecution by the girl as a group that the government control and then the question that is whether or not it was on account of a political opinion and then in general terrified of returning to guatemala especially somebody that age thirteen years old with these things happened to them not live there since he was sixteen years experience on account of a protected ground and if we moved to the question of whether the treatment of his family by the government amounted to persecution and nothing of her that's not true there is nothing in the record that shows that the government aspires government searching out to persecute people people based on political opinion in our experience quotation from the report only party leaders or high
dimensions there i mean make making the wall difference larger or smaller may have some impact on how convenient it might be to get to the test scrip but my question is is there anything critical about how how much of a difference there should be the more this is the bigger the difference it would seem to be the easier it would be to get  angle based on the desired result or something of that sort then it's absolutely crystal clear that that's a result oriented variable sarge or doesn't say a word about that it only talks about it can be longer or shorter depending on whether you want to say  cases dealing with result oriented variables doesn't clearly apply here it seems to me this is a little different i sort of sense reading between the is really arguing that well this is just an obvious in this case based on k s r it's just a matter of common sense and anybody would know that if you want to get elected the focus of the arguments on this narrow subset of obviousness is the result oriented variable line of cases when that really doesn't quite fit because the result oriented issue is not set forth in the reference that you may have in the board might have been better served by addressing the question of obviousness and in the broadest sense according to  board was not appropriate but yet the the claim the invention appears to be obvious in light of sarshar under a broader reading of a s r we have a problem affirming on that basis i wonder why they've had an office inside another reference like maybe the i'm showing my age here but the marlboro box with flip top box gets cigarettes out of the box more easily because it's incline
not before the sentencing and the in probations report that there was a problem here with regard to that application note and it also suggested a number of factors proper departure the district court specifically decided in this case to apply the vulnerable victim adjustment to both of the rights based on age to me that is despite it was despite the fact that in and i'm possibly in one of the right cases and my thought is he must have been thinking of all three cases together because they all perpetrated these crimes together and why isn't that an entirely independent factor well first of all your honor i think i don't i think it's not it a given factor why does i can think of children under under twelve like say a three or four year old playing in the park the parent doesn't supply the child to the perpetrator at all the child  much more likely to be difficult for the perpetrator but if the parent supplies the trouts of the perpetrator then the child is likely to cooperate if the parent is one of the perpetrators and supplies the child people i don't think that that's any different from any child pornography production case with a parent is the victimized what about the cited look here's our progress forty two and one seventeen and one seventeen our the offense built in france by the notion that there are matters which are not directly related to as related to now we're talking about the conditions of the child which are the same as the inability you're saying to me back to maybe you disagree with your prior colleague on my court would not be the court would be granting the i just met based on a characteristic that's unrelated to age i think that it could do it for say a thirteen year old and say i've been thinking about the wording here of comment who two three a one for is one it's the do not apply subsection b that's the two level vulnerable victim adjustment if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the defense guideline for example with the offense guideline revised enhanced and for the age of the victim the subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to at the example of course is just an example it's not a guideline and the comment is the factor and it makes me think maybe that's telling the judge if the only thing you can think of that makes this person vulnerable makes you want to bump the crime up to levels is age of the victim it's already covered but if you've got anything else you can bump it up to small physical size extreme vulnerability of these children and the fact that they were made available to mr crawford as well so he's covering a number of grounds there so are you saying because you
we're going to let them play some music for you and then we'll do a little bit interviews and talk in the middle so with no more
yes but i believe that you yourselves can read characterize the titian that was not character i can do that if the trial court we can find it here or it's as a matter of law we cannot find it let me ask a question to make that case c certainly the vacation in the conviction would yeah i specifically damaging to present evidence or just the one in which i'm sorry what's that case you had both you know but but yeah if you're able to do to lay out the details of the you know what happened as opposed to just he was convicted yeah that might be indeed more damaging but
came and they asked me a lot about the pageant you know how we were judged what we were doing what we didn't washington and we talked a little about political issues we arrived at the international airport there  up in the aisle walking around a lot of the girls were taking pictures madly i was knitting to keep myself calm most of the girls on the way to mobile were prancing and getting ready for the big arrival little did we know how big it was going to be when we arrived in mobile that was one of the most super experiences i've ever had because there were so many people there and it was dark and there were lights around though in the spotlight came on you when you got off the plane and they said in here's so and so's junior missing then said something about you as you went down the ramp everyone clapped and seemed so excited that you were there us down the red carpet and we were taken to our chevrolet cars and we were driven to a nearby shopping center and the jaycees prepared a great big firework display for us i always heard about the southern hospitality i thought wow that's a thing of the past frontier and all that when i got down there was all a are living color about you the climax to the american scene in a pageant comes on stage people are packed out and millions of americans are watching on television it's quite an experience for a high school senior
notably is the mention in the court's own order this is part of a statement furthermore the fact that the parties were involved in a lawsuit in state court for a period of approximately five years during lending because there's been a very specific allegation in the complaint whether true or not whether reasonable reliance or not has been a very specific allegation in the complaint that indeed the plaintiff did allege and i use now the words of learning
good afternoon to judge me please the court i represent mister that's why i am here this afternoon on one issue which is  at one point the judge instructed my client mr yan and the witness miss food to stand up and so they could see each other without any obstruction the judge asked me who can you see the person standing in the room she said i financial statements or a credit history oftentimes they wouldn't qualify for a loan if they went to a traditional bank and some things they borrow among themselves there is a lot of testimony that they were charged high interest then of course is the basis really for your issue and i believe i have a few more minutes if you don't have  person has committed the offense or the defendant conceded that he and wayne had known for the money conceded that they had met with her that they were on the videotape both of them getting the f b i money that the f b i had planted and that she gave back to them you can decide for itself he was the man identified in the movie as the defendant and identified as photos defendant is in fact the man sitting in court and they inside and decide that he was point is that the jury was not privy to that information they made a connection that wasn't there that to the to the second and the third when this is obviously an enormous amount of testimony that these people did not do don't have one hundred dollars i'll give you something less than that and said we'll take the money and we'll never bother you again i mean hardly the actions of hardened criminals there was nobody around it was the enclosed place in an apartment the tape was on they did not know that they
heart of something i feel so lost in the dispute is the fact that the surgery recommended by dr king had been wrapped recommended by dr king at the beginning of the case and that surgery had in fact been performed by d want to award a third surgery to look for the same thing that we've already looked for twice and not seen and in fact tell of the petitioner at that point this may or may not help you but we should go in there again only yes to this resulting from this where you're seeing a several doctors down the road you just happen to go with a doctor at the end and then suddenly you've invalidated all the treatment that they previously offered just i mean it's it if there's a reason why we don't see any case law on that i would suggest that that is exactly why
step back take a look what happened here as far as what was the fact the supplemental instructions had on this jury in this case because they were it was very damaging you got situation here where we've got two felony offenses counts one and two and supreme court said that that's a good analogy are you are you arguing that the instruction is inherently unconstitutional for all cases or only under the circumstances of your particular case  tries right yes although they were careful to say it wasn't a matter of constitutional law but if it's such a neutral instruction what could be motivating the california supreme court i think the california supreme court's explicit reason for for saying that the instruction unconstitutionality of instruction has to be so clear that it will be objective and reasonable force a court to say that in these circumstances it wasn't on the constitution and on these facts even on these facts where nothing
records from the university who did she already know of individuals that she was in school with that were probably in the same category  information that has been proved by the courts in other contexts relating to russia discrimination cases i think the teacher would be able to show her that she didn't do a good job on the exam in the end and now she's trying to see if thinks you can find somebody else to do well i suppose to look for any racial discrimination  failed to maintain that over a period of time she was eventually dismissed for academic reasons which is another reason why the ground of summary judgment was appropriate because not only could she not demonstrate it compare tour which i straddle to work her case because she only ever
counter there they are they haven't drawn any weapons they there's no show of force here she have a door behind her when they first approached her the active they could talk she was not now come back later now if this is really custody well i think what import look at the fact that they did come to her haven case which i believe us what the government's going to rely on is where the defendant went to the f b i office two different times and was told he was leave in this case this court was never told that she was reasonably and where we should have gone she was at work she was just he was in front of her apartment well or know where she was never told that she could face the questioning i think is the more important point because he even came to her said that they needed to talk to her and they did return after she said that you couldn't speak with them right now i think that that shows that she was going to have to talk to them one way or the other for you even even in the  down at the police station even and they present him with some evidence of guilt and that case the supreme court said no that you know everything is a little coercive when you're being asked about a potential crime that you committed but exactly the question is where would she go as opposed to me earlier there's really no where she could have got the officers were right there and there was nowhere else that she could have possibly done to avoid speaking with that if we didn't have to speak to him i mean  i mean that's the point seems to me under the rule you're suggesting you would never be able to go out and you know have a kind of a stop and chat with somebody you have to bring down the station and even then it wouldn't be  that is different than a forty minute questioning a person place of work when you know they're being shown all that these documents and there's a case file that the agent has the agents repeatedly asking questions about the  security and did she know that her mom was receiving social security and and going on and on and i think that when you take everything into consideration not just the fact that she was presented with evidence of her skills but that there were two agents on one what to the one woman and the fact that the questioning took approximately forty minutes that that take that into the custodial  to leave and elected not to do so