MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the motion picture records released by the united states navy the havoc wrought by the japs sneak sky and sea raid on pearl harbor america's direct hits were scored on hangers and these were badly shattered equipment an airplane supplies were reduced to smoldering ruins here at the naval air station is grim and positive evidence of jap treachery their fall blows was struck while jap diplomats were cyclically out of water they lie helpless wrecks at a sad reminder of cowardly strategy to make possible a surprise attack within pearl harbor the jets built to manned submarines to enable them to fire sneak is the actual bombing of the mighty u s s arizona bijapur plane these pictures were made by a fearless camera man who thought nothing of his personal safety to make possible this record for all posterity a smoke billowed to the guy has a massive control tower began to keel over the arrows on his courageous crew stuck to its guns until the very end here was displayed heroism that will live forever in the glorious annals and traditions of june third nineteen thirty five the normandy sixty million dollar luxury liner comes to america on its maiden crossing of the atlantic an event that occasioned a marine demonstration that will live in history whistles blow and siren shrieked the mighty welcome to the new thousand nine hundred forty two the normandy of fire up take a tragedy to the big luxury liner and to america as the flames rapidly spread to devastating fury workers madly scramble to safety fire boats and fire engines per tons of water into the push the giant vessel close to the war
and that was recognized by the prosecutor in our case and in the charging documents which charge him with a violation of title eight section thirteen twenty six of the one  handsome which is for a prior felony as opposed to a prior aggravated felony the reason it's not an aggravated felony is because title eight section one requires i the guidelines require an aggravated felony conviction for that sixteen rival and handsome and despite the fact that the word aggravated felony does not appear in the sub too many different kinds of offenses from last year up until the most serious types of the fences for example murder and they wanted to do something about that one of the reasons they wanted to do something about that because the previous guidelines had an application out number five which would allow the sentencing judge to actually take a look at the seriousness or lack thereof of the prior felony conviction five providing a more graduated sentencing in hansen's a between eight levels and sixteen levels depending on the seriousness of the prior aggravated felony and any reason for the m m that they specifically did use the issue which is that there was a chase liar that indicated that even if the offense was a misdemeanor at the for the prior conviction that could still  very sympathetic to your argument because it appears to me based upon the given reasons for the change your argument is is right on the other hand when i get to the guideline as written and the commentary as can you help me get there last i'm attached i agree you're out of court that would have made this whole issue much clearer and it wouldn't be an issue but i think that that's where we get to the rules of statutory construction where we start with the plain language of a statute or in this case a guideline but it's always important to be very careful to make sure that when it is implemented language you're i i suppose i'm i'm with out of my depth as far as remembering all the details about that particular decision i think here you don't reach that question because the plain language is clear  that when we are talking about the surely legal issue which we are in this case it has to do with the interpretation and application of the guidelines that even if the issue wasn't raised it can still be
a program of preventive dentistry with instructions and died in nutrition and we begin our preventive dentistry program with the basics and that is instruction in home hygiene and home care  assistance here are trained to continue the program by further instructing the families and the children especially take we said that it was fundamental to set her philosophy to involve people from the neighborhood in creative new health roles and certainly one of the most creative the idea of the family health worker a family health worker is typically a woman coronary patients to visiting a city hall to get action on a housing violation you can check the entire family in their home environment not just the mother who was pregnant but also the children for whom she may well suggest things like change or better if they live to far to make the trip from the sale the center bus will go get the idea that the center must be accessible with top priority from the beginning and nobody is ever denied care because he lacks transportation voice in determining the way in which care was delivered for center director dr rodney hall and his staff and was community involvement means working with health council a management group made up of concern of things by using statistical survey you've got to get the community itself by itself needs and wants the consumer input is absolutely essential that it must be in the context of a full partnership entirely at home with this new concept the system is evolutionary and it is evolving it is inevitably confronting tough and complicated issues such as recruitment and changing professional services a man power opening day the beginning of something important from this day of the people of our bees all will have a health center of their own and it is their home in the special way this anything you build yourself belongs to you can be done because they did it so in the future day you when they come here to how their sickness treated and their hurts made well you can understand that if they feel very much  that's part of what it means to have
dishonesty is the conduct of the investigator miller which really is a totality of conduct first that he intentionally disregards the forensic evidence which tells him to tell any reasonable fire investigator that this i witnessed this fall contacted him interviewed him he said oh yeah i get it i get it but i was only joking if you're friends with me i wasn't even there we now know why in hindsight that he was there and in fact so was the friend in the locker room  i am not suggesting that and i would i would agree that that conduct in another self probably would not rise level actually however when he goes to court when he does not tell the prosecutor the problems with this key eyewitness and there's no investigation the notion of the material omissions well i don't know i think it would be very easy to not put everything into a police report and maybe team up in the course of an investigation and that's the perfect this investigation is a perfect
kind of thing we have passed there are similar ones in the neighborhood not many but there's like one per block or you have a second story over a garage and i just i
agree with all your laying out what you think the standards are anticipation determination and piers the board did as well they laid out all of those standards they cited them all and so it seems to me that you're really were complaining about the way they applied t standards to this particular reference well i think that's fair i think that's fair as all own talk about how they apply it because i think frankly i think that shows a misapplied the legal standard and i also think it shows even under a deferential don't think that's true your honor i think what the board relied on was just that i think for me two mistakes with respect to point six one is it limited it limited  institute on one claim and i mean you can't rely can bring in new prior art but i don't think it constrains you that narrowly in terms of the arguments you make and now if i can if i could turn very briefly to climb sixty nine case that we deal with they never argued to the board or the computer of the way or satisfied that levitation in fact if you look at their position they were always relying on the combination of os seven zero five with other features
hundred nine the decision was october twenty seventh so clearly that regulation a ruling applied it dealt specifically with the nature of this particular case and and gives us pages of reasons why why don't those reasons hold up from our standpoint as a reviewing court again they the l j accurately set out the find talks about a dr johnson on a couple of occasions i think you meant to say dr jensen because i know of no dr johnson and there is a doctor jensen but in looking at dr jensen this is the  accurately and he also in talking about the credibility of the claim that he says whatever activity level was higher than it should have been but i think if you look activities that are free physicians there's she can't live i don't think she ever did i think she talked about she did things during the day i don't think she ever talked about i do something and i've watched a time of four hours or i can do this or that everything is years she's talking about what she does throughout a day and that's often how did it take her to drive a car from oregon to utah i don't i don't know if that was related i know it takes a long time having done it she did that when she went to utah yes this year she drove a car to utah it's not wrong i think she quit driving altogether i don't think she drove at all so i don't know i think the testimony good morning your honor steven johnson representing the commissioner of social security it is in the record that the plaintiff or ups or ms rames testified that she can't do anything for two to three days after riding with her husband in the car for a few hours and yet every two or three months she flies to southern california funtastic california for visits with a physician there's no evidence in the record that she has to rest after driving to the airport she has to rest after the flight  the benefit of the doubt and he said of her fibromyalgia all except as a severe impairment and with guard list of whether or not chronic fatigue syndrome severe impairment all include all the limitations that are evidence in the record in the residual functional capacity and that's what diagnosis is based on subjective complaints but then the l g s job is to assess the limitations that actually are likely to exist based on the record as a whole d traveling using the internet painting sewing organizing of political women's group and her testimony that after a little maybe a couple hours every activity she needs to testing the lack of support for that from dr torrey's as opinion or examination and that the lack of after that if someone is actually either in bed or on the couch for
reasonable degree of probability that's correct not to do that and he had a number of indications that he testified to the jury showing the pictures why he believed that the firearm was a genuine firearm for instance he said that there were commentator cuts in the firearm which you don't see in replicas generally which allows the gun gives a gun less of a kickback allows the energy to five through the gun besides he said there was a sli mechanism that you don't see normally on twenty guns and he also noted several groups and other markings that clocks have that he said he has not seen on replicas he showed the jury the pictures of the gun and examiner and they did extensive cross examination between mark examiner and his qualifications and his methodology and as i said he showed the picture to the jury and identify each and every mark that he had used to determine that the weapon was a glock and  firearms from very early age and that he had in the past robbed an individual at gun point and ended up in the weapon at this individual and discharged it twice in a public place in addition he noted the violence of this particular incident and that the gun was held to one woman's head and to another woman's abdomen and he cited the danger that he believed the defendant posed to the public so that was not an abuse of discretion it was support the verdict and in this particular case there was quite a bit of evidence as to the the gun the genuine quality of the guns the both the ont and the nice testif that they were only two or three feet from each other when the incident first began and the individuals were pointing guns at them they testified as to the color of the guns the testified that one of the guns had a longer handle than the other meaning it had an extended magazine  they both testified that the guns were held against them one against her temple and the other against her abdomen the testified that she was aware of the gun because of the fact that martinez was so aggressive with her niece that she feared that he was going to kill her so there are quite a few factors which which go to that testimony ensure that that evidence was sufficient in addition go back to your earlier question i come across
manifestation of our creator that this is the greatest resource he's given us to solve problems as human beings and we've made it illegal out of ignorance greed and racism is the song i know that kids are going to lay roses at my gr well i have my differences with normal effect radical russell had the normal i'd show you in portland i had plenty of differences with them but you know they have done wonderful work over the years especially with
questioning you're right we don't know exactly to what extent and which questions are asked but the prosecutors want volved and mapping out the strategy and were involved in the interviews themselves including in terms of asking some questions and then the prosecutors ask the f b i agents there's they're not asking for the three of twos let's just assume there's not even at the rio two out there that that's just not part of what the f b i does but the prosecutors say can you give me and then at the close of it the prosecutors and there's an advance understanding to the effect that the questioners are going to keep notes about the interview and then afterwards the prosecutors  whether they were simply observing they could be observing as oversight to be questioning agents more likely present so that they paragraph that the prosecutors participated in selecting the witnesses discussing and determining in advance his best to give strategy for each interview and questioning the witness fact you argue it only in the alternative so i think if we know enough about the role of the agents about the reason for the interviews about the as a
of that state that the more stringent standards of good cause applies only were applying to files a motion to expand after expiration of the original ninety day period citing kennedy and we have  difficulty and i would suggest is that is that the moment that that we recognize that that will sixty two this actually involves a entirely different standard conflict between the two movements i'm just giving you an example where they are not in conflict they can be reconciled here i am here to mean doesn't answer my observation you simply say prerogative and it's been done and other cases time it didn't address for service to the particular officers of the corporation that measure the massachusetts statutes and the rules require for service by mail on the floor of the operation there's no explanation at all claims because the sacrament those cases said was the most important for communication said that there needs to be a satisfactory explanation and we come here again to the point i made a moment ago inclusiveness process presentation to
you have you have different factual requirements and different something and the charge and the charge didn't let's back and if you look at you know well i think that might be i think you are because in the same way that traffic tickets are sent to magistrate and people on a jury trial rights it may be that if you get to a very low dollar amount punishment i don't think they serve the same purpose we're presently in the first to speak on appeal for the second trial this is one of the honor that's correct this is one of those rare situations where we are agreeing with the panel and not arguing that the twenty three thousand dollars should be paid to the other they had an opportunity to respond in writing to the orders to show cause which they did do they had no opportunity to testify at two evidentiary hearing speaking to the order to show cause which they also chose to do in
ask for a final judgment that is that our position are that if in fact this court does dismissed for lack of distinction it would put us back to the status quo of a right to leave to amend or alternatively to submit i believe it's even a letter to the the district court and then back up to this court on an issue that's been fully briefed and his fully complete record it is at this point but of course the only that's an appealing argument the only difficulty with it is  financial interest but it also made no specific finding on the personal relationship between the agent and the buyer which perhaps would not have had a dispositive effect on the good face of the purchaser but certainly standard practice and such a situation for either the defendant to propose an order to the court saying they have an amended please enter judgment or for the plaintiff to go to the court and say we don't intend to him and so would you please enter judg as sometimes what we have done in these cases i've seen like in a fifty four b case or others for there's a question about that when people go back to the district court and then they come back to us and really hold it in abeyance and things get regularized that of course is usually where there's one procedural hoops to jump through what we don't know here is whether there will be an attempted amendment or whether that would be permitted on the some point we would have jurisdiction and we would consider the merits so i just think it might not the so useful for you today to get into the merits if the courts find it not useful behalf of your client at this point or if you would wish just to hold us for ten days while you determine whether you want to go back to the bankruptcy court in amend and do whatever you might do there or whether you simply want to our judgment to be entered in the bankruptcy court or whether you are simply going to go back and take part in whatever proceedings might occur there and you can advise us by letter w
the final matter on for argument this morning is baker versus stryker corporation every eighteen eleven e my implant that well that was effective no could think of no it is physically and scientifically impossible to know as all of my doctors would testify one has already a proper discovery needs to sort these details mr baker yes sounds like you've had a very rough time with your job and i'm very sorry to hear it could you say when you first started suffering the pain and choking sensations that you described while they were only young but again being able to very testimony is so questioning well legitimacy given that they have a law which won't listen them traction i raised to which she observed no apparent consideration when i saw him in january two was in the context of information from another doctor that i wouldn't run the risk of  giving might be crippling my ability to to swallow for the rest of my life and you know he didn't want to  he i don't from our speculations which were speculations because that this was from live forever first visit with him  brad and overlap condition when he had no knowledge what so ever it was a baseless speculation about it being a possible  he had a personal prejudice against any possibility of overlap being used for the same plants as own personal design u may please the court my name is paul s and s i represent stryker corp the defendant appellee and i'll be very brief we all know that mr baker has suffered and had an unfortunate result from his surgery and  i think it has apparently resolved at this point although he had years of suffering this though is a straightforward application of the statute of limitations in new york and the rule is and has been for over thirty five years that in a medical implant case that does not involve blatant exposure to a toxic substance the statute of limitation a cruise on the date of injury itself and i think based on mr baker's own papers in the complaint we all know that injury occurred when this allegedly myside missed the mentioned implant was placed in his in his jaw and impinged on the muscle and that would have happened on the date of surgery in two thousand and six is consistent of course with testimony that as the numbness from the surgery wore off the pain manifested itself more and more but again all of this happened in two thousand and six so the pain lasted seven years i don't think there's a question in the record that the pain that started in two thousand and six was the same pain that eventually result when the implant was taken out in two thousand and thirteen it's not operative when mr baker discovered the cause of the diagnosis and so for him negligence and strict liability it would have run the statute of limitations in two thousand and nine and implied warranty is four years from the date of tender which could not have taken place later than the surgery and so that would have run in two thousand and ten if there are any questions i can answer them on the whys of it i think we have the arguments will take the matter under