MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
report or a study or something there's nothing that is true but there is testimony regarding that point the testimony last lesson is that he understood that he would not as a believer in this religion he would not participate in military service please the court catherine hancock for respondent the attorney general the b i a properly affirmed denial of this island in this case that evidence does not compel a finding that the petitioner is likely to be persecuted on account of his religion either of alternative theories there is no evidence that the government is currently persecuting pentecostalists in general or that petition art is individually is likely to be persecuted for practicing his religion in was no past persecution in this case nor is there any well founded fear of future persecution the position are admitted that he did not know what would happen to him if he practice religion in armenia now because he did not know the current circumstances the country reports so also i thought i j found that there is increasing religious tolerance since the time to try to lock armenia back in the early  ninety s nor is there any evidence that petitioner has a genuine religious objection to military service rather he is afraid he testified that he's afraid of being conscripted based on a lack of law and order and the danger court basis for the motion i think and that's not really discussed is if you show that there were there was going problems in armenia as late as two thousand and one there were great individual persecution i think the equation of his beliefs cost the documentary evidence shows that here there is a significant possibility that he would indeed face such
but this may be typical find someone here to play with it's an organ grinder and his monkey no one for him to play with it sounds as though there are many dogs nearby maybe to be can find a friend in here blake to be as afraid of the dog he calls mr black tell needs someone to play with and i don't have time to play with you given the company he should have jimmy thanks mr black
locally for the holidays in particular with this time of the year the relationships that you build the shopping locally you get to meet the owner of the business and interact with them they get to tell you why they buy the things they buy why they're wanting to sell them to you because these people really care about the products that they're putting out there so those relationships are huge also at the end of the day more of your money is staying in your community when you shop at a local business time provided the music over the loudspeaker and this was an opportunity of something special for shopping night it's been kind of the same old same old for a lot of years and so we got the crowd got together with odd entente holland and took time and said let's do something special and we
have thirty five days within which to get it settled and if you do motion to dismiss should be presented to this court absent that this
a twenty five year sentence gave rise to what we would like to call unwarranted disparity and this court in twenty eight teen court now of course for the second defendant mr fischer the judge gave them the statutory maximum it wasn't available to the judge to give them any more than just correct and it hadn't happened ended up with about four call it four million dollars after all is said and done and i mr fisher according to the government ended up with one point two million dollars out of the hundred and seventy nine million th think of course disparity are one of the factors thirty five fifty three a but just for the record you know it's worth noting that three hundred month sentence was well below what the guidelines he gets onto the charter plane you thought ecuador he might have gotten away with it because they came pretty close and the judge does you know say look the united states isn't perfect but you know why are you going to give up your american kind of behavior what sort of penalty do we need to give you a big to get with the court the courts the district judges comments concerning the defendant's lack of patriotism if you will ever use that word that was going on because he was making a fraudulent application for asylum claiming that they only had actually had a valid basis for more political asylum in ecuador the the court i've had the privilege to the absolute privilege of appearing before judge good course for god the better part of thirty years do i feel is comments were so out of touch with the way he conducts his court that you have to read it three or four times to get a flavor for what  there may be a court in a fact but the perception both of the defendant in the state department was it was very likely we could never attain in from there  time is different but you can't just look at the time because the chargers that set forth the provable conduct and more importantly she supported looking at the port found that the defendant conduct was more significant of the two that he controlled all the proceeds that he was principally responsible for all the losses the record established that he'll long had contact with all of the victims he alone fabricated all of the documents which were multiple he forged the
here they did not have probable cause for arrest and while the initial encounter may have been voluntary it evolved into a full blown arrest and it's time he was in custody the police will not have prob
you may proceed counsel simply because of her work as a d c if this caseworker had the authority to enter a residence without the express consent of the owner of the residence in the course of her official  the confrontation the key and why she was there but i'm talking about specifically the injury did the defense take the position that because of her position as a d c office investigator that she had the authority to enter without the there was no legitimate reason for her to be there are you saying that somehow she intervened in the normal dispatch process and got herself into this position where she was able to go to
of the board of immigration appeals summary of permits without opinion of the immigration judge's order denying his motion to reopen and request that the court be also her request the courts to sponsor reopen the proceedings the immigration in medication that he required on a daily basis and the other medical treatment yet one whose group brought before the immigration court there were no precautions taken as to whether he was mentally competent to appear this is in direct violation of the governing regulation r twelve forty point ten c for hiv in the immigration judge from accepting an admission of remove ability from a mentally incompetent individual unless that person is represented or accompanied by a parent or a legal guardian accepted the general principle reinstatement and found that it did not violate due process and another reason and for giving deference to the government speculation w ground what would we do in this case well i don't feel comfortable speaking as that case so no i'm not asking you whether we would be correct i don't think you posed the first in the prior case and say the regulations invalid now you're up here arguing your kids and we expect the regulations invalid everybody who's getting a reinstatement order is entitle to who is in the country illegally and notice to appear is to issue to them and they don't receive it so when they're ordered removed and sentient then they leave the country right they have no right to be here in the first place only leave the country then the order removal is affected then they come back into the country illegally i feel to see how there's any now possible violation of due process what i'm saying is that here legally to begin with error people get put in jail for crimes they didn't commit and so forth and so on i don't think the job of the court is to decide whether a statute passed by congress
f on friday news like this in the morning like this keep in mind on the war makes you think of things like a new car cab last much longer or or you can talk to the wave on another end of the wire to turn the lights on
hearing before a different judge and on appeal the board granted the suspension application mr isa is now a permanent resident of the united states in fact so on appeal the board shows to grant suspension they might as well have granted the asylum but they chose to overrule the judge and they did grant and she didn't suffer persecution for her per her claim is is virtually inseparable from her spouse's claim and the record does show that the spouse had been arrested beaten tortured interrogated and for separate occasions and imprisoned for up to two months at a time and that is in the record orde drawn the immigration judge was wrong and that's why we're here we're start with that the immigration judge who first of all this court would have to be compelled to find that the decision was wrong that's the standard here it's a very high standard and there are three main reasons why that somebody who has a well founded fear of being persecuted in a country would fall entirely travel there is her three children as well as some of her half and some of her fear is because of what happened when she  seven years well as you said earlier that she's not eligible for suspension or shot so it just goes back to another question i believe you ask your on that is when she left the country that's the that the absence was she was she she left the country not on a whim but because of this it her mother who was deathly ill and by the way her mother now is a lawful permanent resident of the united states and opportunity to decide whether there is a social group involved i don't know you're honest but i can answer that this court has held that  so i don't i think our lives just open now i don't believe that the board addressed that the less i think you know of any case where the big board has grass family as a social group question that would control in this case after the thomas case i do not you don't they don't know of any case i would simply close by adding there is a fourteen year old daughter russia r e s h k who has had i believe eight operations brain damaged she's treated by her mother and would die without the attention of her mother and the other children have similar illnesses this is a very difficult case from the standpoint of breaking up the family
one of the things you know the straightest see that the little concept and what you did with it in terms of areas of emphasis created a nice trajectory for diversity over time so if you want to if you want to build the number of people that come to the museum it's been that he'd arrange that you had did you stick to that age range or are you thinking that you want multi
situation the case has made it to the circuit and therefore the only issue that should be before the circuit is whether he's a citizen or not a citizen and we are here by the way  eight you see he says well not an alien who is removable i'm not in a while we need to determine whether you in congress has bestowed upon the square appeals by the plain language in the twelve fifty to be five which not only in nationality as a cape verdean national and who is there of the parents and so they go to the cape verde variant consulate or embassy and sign the birth registration however they will also recently have been this is a matter of cross that out if the jurisdiction says everyone is equal but then there's an additional requirement of acknowledgement perhaps then  memory when that the importance of citizenship was just too great a responsibility to not allow the gatekeepers to the supreme court to decide it plenary i mean it's it's that
theories got to be that you got the right to get back to a friend that's correct our our position before you today will be that lately was a clarify cation of a likely themselves in lately the court clarified that quote the relevant statutory maximum is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts but the maximum responded to the government's argument saying wait a minute you know there there wasn't any law made about the guidelines here justice stevens said well and append the guidelines warning play the only issue was expressed or you should therefore we phrased our holding and stated the issue in terms of specialty maximum and that doesn't it that doesn't take away the petitioners arc and therefore we reject the government's for a friend yet come down before the mandate issue for court that's a good question i don't know the answer to that i don't know whether there are many of those cases at all but  i think so long as well i don't think you have to recall the mandates but in those cases like mr triplets where the petitioner brings twenty to fifty five motion and if a friend he was in play at the time to play plea would warrant relief then like mr triplett that movement under twenty two fifty five would be entitled to prevail that would be my position thank you very much below and the rooster issue the speedy trial x russo issue was predicated upon representations made by the prosecution to the court yes supposed to evidence defendant mr triplett raised with with the absolutely no financial basis whatsoever developed in the court below including the very speedy trial lawyer legal claim either there was collusion between the federal prosecutor and the local prosecutor and delaying the filing of the federal charges this court chose not to consider there those issues because it was prosecutor that responding with evidence when the entire defense claim for all practical purposes was based upon evidence that was never in any formal way because of the greater consequences for drug cases in the federal system didn't that in itself that there was a roost between the two systems i would also ask the court to consider the obvious complexity of this case there were some fifty witnesses presented it a three week long trial and naturally the local prosecutor filed a the conspiracy charge when and for i believe over a year involved much interstate activity and many many participants only six of palm were ultimately charged in the federal case so i just want to make sure that the court understands the quote factual history of how this roof claim came to be before  was regard to the arguments raised by defense counsel and the other so we say more sophisticated arguments regarding the overall impact of the prend the blakely booker and judge even comments that's never been briefed by the government in rather i mean it's raised for the first time and in oral
the of the mind that it was unfair to have them treated differently and the sentencing commission finally correcting that problem whereby people sat and straight their sentences under the crack cocaine sentencing guidelines now are given the opportunity to have those sentences reduced in comparison to powder cocaine levels and believe you have the same situation indicated that there was no intent for there to be this discrepancy so it appears that this is just one of those matters that kind of rolled through the cracks when these regulations were made and in fact between two lots of of arguments and lots of arguments were made here about the defendant not just about the guideline issue as extensive argument i would say about that but there was argument about his his family circumstances his brother his role in the  problem because as with fact the law clearly says at the time you get the benefit of the law at the time you committed your fan and he can't get work for you from there but it doesn't keep tracking out in the change in the guidelines but clarifying amendment but that's just not the case it was an easy level change in the cap commission says the modification not a clarification it wasn't made retroactive explicitly by the commission it's not a clarification of the modification and that's what the it whatever the lowest situation that he felt could apply would apply but i don't believe that he realized or recognized or course of three years they recognize there was a problem and they eventually did put them on the same footing because that was there and found all along now yes that there was some that i believe that this court here i'm make that determination has jurisdiction authority and power to do so and again in the worst situation i believe under the rule of  the the guideline level for crime but he should have gotten the full benefit in of the two thousand and one is you car this case was delayed because of september eleventh two thousand and one primarily because they were scheduled to go to trial at that time and i would like to t
section defines friendlessness as a risk because of gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation that's what's occurred in this case there was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable the same as a person driving a car under the influence of would not be exercising and adequate standard of care such that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation and that is where the guideline for departure and that's taken with cases and so what we have here is also a drunk driving case is also a dui case on a bench drunk driver generally doesn't in fact only one person if there's a crash  as there was this case generally there are other incidents leading up to that crash just this person is just was moving all over the road there were people and there were people trying to stop
so we're familiar with the facts and they seem to me there were a couple of adverse credibility findings that were pretty minor or speculative but the the one that seems to reasonable for her to believe so what is relevant here is that the grandmother was arrested in that in that it is the judge to be reasonable for the petition in this case to hear the same thing where she to return to china and it's inconclusive as to what is the actual cause of death and some of the other things and i don't believe that this is particularly relevant because what the really what the petitioner fears if she were to return was is that she would be arrested and that is not in dispute in this case the vast majority of ten thousand tens of thousands detained since two thousand have been released thousands still remain so that state department court actually supports the petitioners position that issue would return even though i'm your novice in the belief that she would be subject to arrested again and we believe that that doesn't rise to the level of persecution and i know the government argues that there must be individualized evidence for such a finding and these like t knowledge otherwise this is the this is the story that they came at you overheard them talking about wanting to rest not only her grandmother but also her as the i j a didn't believe that you could actually in the house because she was in the backyard then it's possible that she could be elaborating or making and if she's not credible we don't know that for sure well but if it is she said the color of my walls was blue and it was pink and she's lying about that and but we've said those kind of things are testimony is that she does not have documentation of that in any other regards besides her own testimony she had paperwork and arrest warrant a conviction something that showed that now that her lack of clarity and explanation of how it happened wouldn't be that relevant all we have  about the bare minimum someone could assert just as or involvement no that's not your situation if we believe her grandmother was changed to captured beaten and then her grandmother died she's glad she went to
examiners had difficulty evaluating ferguson because they were a functional overlay dr weingarten said of functional overlay he results in symptom magnification by the patient which is usually done sub consciously the administrative law judge called on the psychiatry to stock her mind read bird to testify and she said she did not know the meaning of functional overlay but to her this had a fact that a functional overlay is not done intentionally by the patient it's done subconsciously and the definition given by the judge by dr mind revert t psychiatry was totally incorrect she said that this was first of all she said she didn't know what it meant secondly she said to her it had a negative connotation and there is no negative connotation she should have check their view any virt your view of them that statement control the aerial j's decision of course it does absolutely it was an incorrect definition was state judge accepted and all those terms while in that category and any every definition by any expert that's correct recognizes this is an subconscious disease well and the patient has absolutely no control and that dr why gardens the term functional overlay magnifying the symptoms usually subconsciously and dr monte burke said she didn't know exactly what was meant and so it seems like since she didn't provide a definition and the negative connotation she should never have gone into a negative connotation because she's admitted she didn't know what the term meant but if you get any dictionary you know as i mentioned the d s m or this the commissioner listing they will tell you that functional overlay which is a form to psychosomatic disorder that falls under some out of form disorder it has many names conversion reaction hysteria and so on that this is done sub consciously by the patient now there is proof of it in this particular case because there is too m m p i test one done in early on and i believe it's one hundred seventy six by to the evidence of these kind of inconsistent behaviors on examination against the claim and as the form of a conscious exaggeration and i apologize to the court but features and so i just assuming that we can reach that i'm not really sure i understand why it doesn't change the landscape manically in favor of the second is by dr cohen dr collins and m p i was done at the same time that this claimant filed for disability benefit so it's very relevant in the time period the earlier one which was done six or