MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
charting was right legally in the philippines so was her daughter in her original asylum application which she thought of many years ago she stated very clearly that her father was employed by the government the that's correct and that's why i'm trying to get this case we heard my objective in coming here today is to get the case reminded so that this woman will not be sent back to the philippines where she and her daughter was raped trio within ninety days of the ports decision that was the reason for it i never suspected that this case would be denied because it seemed that the conduct of the judge and the trial attorney were egregious simply egregious and in light of recent an adjustment interview with the service and they have issued a paper indicating that they are waiting for the ninth circuit to remain the case so that in fact the judge could then grant adjustment  are people who are totally honorable in all respects they have observed all the laws of this country they pay taxes they've worked they've done nothing wrong whatsoever they should be given a chance to right this wrong she can't return thousand three point two c two of title eight of the code of federal regulations clearly states that a motion to reopen deportation proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered don't voluntarily departures yeah right yes that's correct and she has to go to the director you can't really even get it reinstated is that the way that goes and actually and i say not sure what the procedures are for that your honor i don't
of march and channel that into and really tangible and important change in our community be that in the form of new organizers or new legislation or programs that allow progress to happen  working together to progress i'm here to support you know keeping for increasing our health care benefits and stopping us from losing social security and knows types of benefits i'm a veteran disabled american veterans and i get support from the government but i don't i want everyone to go see that it and i'm down here because health care is very important to me without health care i wouldn't be here today reason without good health care i wouldn't be here today either he or lucky enough to have insurance through my husband's company but my friends do not and so i'm here for them and anyone else who needs health care and i here to stand up and speak out against what the trumpet ms that administration is trying to do and let them know that there are sincere people here in this country who love the rest of the people around us and are not state level like climate justice social justice economic justice will be financed health care for all and you name it so i'm very impressed with what everybody is doing it writes in democracy in our evolution in all these groups and i'm kind of a newbie so many go figure out how i c something a little more productive
because they're going to do something after the notices got out right the notices got out and so you're a you're a current subscriber you get the notice you've been terminated yet so you're not going to claim from the claim fun for that for that payment for playing the flat rate a t f right so you're in the donut hole and we try to address those folks showing adequacy of representation we have a specific category in the settlement agreement to address those people and why if they're going to be treated just like everybody else  because the problem would be number one you don't know yet you have you haven't noticed period right you have a claim period so people are going to be claiming against the fund and i'm going to keep the claim period open forever but there are going to be current subscribers who the claim on the cat cash part of the fund their time to claim may have passed right but they need to get some relief so we created a category for claimants who it's not the cash relief but for the folks that terminated you know that have that pay the flat rate e t f it's the they would get either a prepaid calling card they would get a waiver of an activation free bonus minutes and text messages so if you are treated is it fair or unfair to say somebody who represented them and had an interest for something better than the phone card should have been paid well your honor what i what i would say about that is that there was not as far as i can tell a challenge to say that this result was unfair in other words mr bush's argument is just you didn't have anybody there but he doesn't say if you had somebody there i would have gotten better than what you got so the idea that there are these class representatives didn't have an incentive and weren't working for people in the donut hole is just the point being that there is a category for them in the settlement agreement now i just want to make make this clear on the on the timing of we're the we're we're is the only competent evidence the chart you know is from his brief where was the competent evidence it was october nineteenth that's twelve days after the deadline so it's not a factual record that the judge could say ok i got rice here i got we are here how do i make the meet
yes thank you this case is here to decide the issue as to whether mr stewart is properly classified as a career and their issue concerns a wisconsin conviction that the united states probation office discovered in regards to their investigation that conviction from wisconsin which included which  instant nonsense was eighteen years of age and he had another prior conviction in federal court so this wisconsin conviction would have made him a career offender which i district court ruled that in referencing whether he's a career offender that's the language incorporated in reference to or be one point to be  indicated that that crime in wisconsin was classified as a controlled substance offsets it is mr stewart's assertion they have it is not a controlled substance under the should be noted that in the playing statute language of forty one dollars crime of violence does include attempts or aiding and abetting we believe because of because the it is clear that in adams that this circuit believes that the application notes does not add anything or makes the forty one point two and by reference forty one point one matters which are concerning weapons and even though they they suspect to be one point one controlled substance as congress i do not believe that even though a crime in practice may fit a controlled substance it's the language that controls and just because we may think either in  or complete x is being the same misfires a conviction in federal court that is not always the case i believe that the language being left out of what was presented to congress and passed by congress is important if it wanted to be there if they wanted it there they would have had it there i do know that in adams that you reference the sentencing commission and the because the application notes have something that was not presented to congress in the actual sentencing it's forty one point two that it should not be given any statutory weight so we were asked this court to remand this matter for re sentencing thank you  that have ruled on this issue have reached the same conclusion as the th circuit that in coed offenses yes conspiracy attempting in aiding and abetting are within the definition of controlled substances and under guidelines or manufacture or deliver narcotics and that in compass liability for aiding and abetting in conspiracy that conviction constituted a controlled substance events within the meaning of the guidelines unless there are any questions from the panel government will
was some favorable evidence that somehow was withheld from your client and frankly i don't see i guess it was well you speculate there may have been but that doesn't even come close to any supreme court case that i'm familiar with that a witness may have known something favorable but what case even comes close to saying that that that satisfies  even there and perhaps fabricated i mean we do have we we have the circumstantial evidence that you have to you put together you have the prosecution presenting testimony of more than two prosecution witnesses at the grand jury and you have them intending to process clause guarantees the right to discover the identity of witnesses so even that that right can get you there are two basic problems with the other side's position one is that there's no showing that the information the government had was suppressed because the substance was turned over and there's no showing that even if the even if the information had been turned over it would have resulted in favorable evidence and indeed if the information had been turned over and investigated and then resulted in favorable favorable evidence there's no clearly established supreme court law that says that the government is responsible for for information that is not from out of the circuit and we have a rule that if one judge wants to hear oral argument that's all it takes and so if we can't get ahold of people there's no way we can we can process a motion like that was filed so close i apologize for that i can't that's ok just so you know if you
remember conquered bridge seven hundred seventy five here it was here in this prison i fired the shot heard round the world remember valet for i was the winter soldier starving mark marching i made america free working at peace i built america my camps became cross roads my front teeth of thoughts give me the hardest job remember i brought america to the pacific punch the railroad tunnel
factual course and i do agree those portions are under a different standard i believe that may be what they're referring to but the constitutional issues still remain a restrictive sentence necessary which is what is he's directed to do by statute that the judge can consider on the stand and feel this is a big very high sentence and it's going above and beyond what's not not actually ended it for the mandatory minimum sentence just submitting to the court memorandum by attorney general at the time eric holder and this is while our case was pending th mandatory minimum suggesting that the minimum did not really play into the decision here what you are argument is still the mandatory minimum set but the minimum that that the starting point so the judge is starting at ten years instead of starting at five and adding two to the five he's starting at ten and cannot go below that ten so again the judge is restricted in terms of where he's got have to start t sentence and the starting point is very high and i pointed out to the court that my client had two co defendants who were determined to be leaders of the whole operation who were already serving  exact same sentence as my client who has no history he's got zero history points yes one one hundred fifty one one my client has zero criminal history points he has a solid work history his work most of  is the separation of powers violation bleeds into your leads into a due process violation and that goes to call defendant's statements were allowed to be used against my client the determination is made by a preponderance of evidence at sentencing rather than beyond reasonable doubt so i believe that violates my client's six minute right to a trial by jury on everything that he's going to be sentenced on again that the government is allowed to present lower charges and then at sentencing come with additional charges that they can prove at a lower standard and again the court allows hearsay double hearsay just simply the written statements or all the court uses and i mean i think the supreme court has really remarkably we're not reliable wh mr boykin we have your brief is there anything you wish to add to it all right which case will be taken under advisement
may please the court i'm joseph daley for the appellant retirement system i'd like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal your honour's this appeal presents two issues for the court today st whether you consider together and holistically the complaints factual allegations raise a strong inference of the defendant c an't or that is at least as compelling as any innocent inferences on the defendant's side and the nd issue is whether the allegations of for statistically significant stock drops following the partial disclosure of fraud related events gave the defendants some indication of the plaintiff's loss as well as the causal connection between that loss and to defend its actions now turning to the sea enter under this court's precedents allegations showing that the defendants recklessly turned a blind eye to impropriety or fail to investigate the doubtful comprise conduct that is equally culpable as actual knowledge they have to be trying to defraud the market right yes so it what strikes me reading this scenario is that there's a lot of conduct that you point to that was i'm looking at it from your perspective pretty concerted effort to avoid disclosing ex parte communications that's correct but let's but the heart of that misconduct is the fact that hanging around of course right and so when arguably that is what they're doing well they're not if you're writing the rules that's your position they're breaking the rules and trying to get it done by writing gaging in his expert to communication that's correct and not only are they breaking the rules they are making misstatements about the breaking of the rules they are not telling the market to whom they also have a fiduciary duty to right their shareholders they are not telling the market that they are having these continual these repeated ex parte unreported communications which if they because of place place let's put ourselves in poland on march th and th two thousand and thirteen seniors california edison executive is sitting next to one of the five c p u c commissioners that will be voting on that settlement think texting about it and texting as i think you have very compelling story there all right well then i will move on from santa although in our brief to cover the areas that the district court made we think with in terms of santa because he took mr pickett's denial to mr
section thirty nine of the russian nationality u s c twelve tonight and therefore does not stop the time for the ten years required for cancellation of removal for certain residence of the court overturned to remarry in this particular case is inappropriate if we deny the petition mr conway would the petitioner here be able to go back to immigration authorities and ask for th relief application form for relief so he already has that option open there's no reason for this court to remain and to accomplish something that mr emeritus i missed that alre endorsed that approach in your free if in explaining that view both the board in your brief cite cases from discord in which we have on our deferential review of other board decisions said well ok this terrible thing that that happened to this person does not necessarily amount to persecution doesn't compel a finding that it's persecution and in a couple of we expect the board to say to to make its own expert to say about what amounts to persecution when we get those decisions on judicial review we try to be relatively deferential as the law requires us to be to those but to then have our deferential to turner relied upon by the board to say oh that's not persecution seems to turn the logic of deference on its head you follow me i deciding in the first instance what amounts to persecution i'm not sure that i think that that is what the board is doing i think that what the board is saying is that we have they have already decided that this was not persecution in those cases and in  that were administered and also says that actually were taken to mitigate any fruit any for any lasting effects so grab is what the board has decided i think what they say get out when they get up to this level in this in you then agreed when i say you know i mean the co agrees that this is not persecution that's why they are quoting that back to understand why they would do so but but there's a real potential problem here that has allowed us to remain and for further review when the court seems to be whether brother when the board seems to be relying too much on our deferential administrative review to kind of ratchet the standard for persecution higher and higher and higher to an unrealistic level i don't think that they've done that that they it is a type of relief from deportation where a person is saying that there is a clear probability that they will be harmed if the return to their home country that in fact of the two things that were before the
since i disagree with that leaving the record because i don't think the prosecutors bankier eight reasons why each do what i what i said and when we should go the other the way the whole thing is the reason the judge should go the other wet this entire argument is about  just history characteristics the defendant and lack of motivation to return to the united states like that this was a legal reentr and if that child proceeds to do precisely that act and refrain from that contest and then the mother will turn her back and in does exactly what she said she couldn't do everybody understands  recommendation your agreement your plea agreement that you would do certain things with respect to the sentence and you didn't do that then you proceeded to argue against your very own position opposed to the stance motion for a twenty four month sentence of imprisonment and i recommend you're either a sense of the high end of the guideline range which is thirty seven months and every word that he has said between those two things just  departure of variance upward that's why they entered into this plea agreement that's why our office had to talk about this and think well this is a lesser sentence that look they change the guidelines that fall we're going to fall off we're going to recommend  prosecutor says that's why i'm doing this i just why i decided not to pursue it arter a variance because the guideline range changed he wasn't arguing against his own recommendation he was explaining why he was recommending an even lower had the seconds i'm recommending would be and i deterrence i think we might have a problem but it's the context that's just critical here judge because he's just he's describing the guidelines of the prosecutor says the same thing i don't think the prosecutor intended to challenge his own recommendation or to say i'm recommending a sentence that doesn't make sense that's not  commission such as the guidelines and we followed them and he's saying judge we knew it all in advance for talked about it we decided it was essentially commissions call we're going to go with that we're going to recommend a guideline sentence even though
substantial hearing that was held was hearing on the drug the belief minimal if any discovery was completed at that point we are we're simply saying that as far as the declaratory relief that is still an opportunity for factual discrepancies in issues of material fact regarding two thousand and thirteen lease as first in the order granting the owners of the land are stuck with this for who's life well and that's that's that's another you hit in the also isn't it i mean isn't it standard practice in a farm lease that there's a notice
yeah yeah you know really bad headache after that has been a month since adam has passed away i feel sad but like less can't go on
you can retain more of those valuable nutrients and when steaming food like vegetables you minimize your cooking time my kitchen essential are several sizes of microwaves say glass or ceramic bowls my  patented vented glass fluids and covering cook plate cover and of course a good sharp knife in a decent cutting board so let's get started
interesting things began to happen people from the cities began riding out into the country and people began going to the city sections of the population began to get acquainted with each other for the first time aloud the kind a native would give you directions so complicated you couldn't find your way around with a compa for the first time americans were able to travel inexpensively across their own country and their own cars see the comedians at a field day with it
already have if you've never made a video before and your life we walk you through the new birth moment here's where you press on knock on the camera and so that's hot and with instructors and staff from st paul neighborhood network and other community based organizations so in the case of me can making media making change after that a credit course for that you need to bring to master the following summer there's an opportunity to take either a four credit or a credit internship right here in the sinkhole neighborhood network so this is an opportunity to really put your practical and your technical skills to work right away and everything from new development work to communications and marketing to community production and so actually being part of the m b a in a new  to she was able to play the position and work with a really dynamic supervisor with the marketing and communications department and she said everything from already you know writing a lot of walks that have been widely read by members and she just pitched that  should be using tumbler and how to use sort of justify why should an organization be on tumblr what's a strategic advantage and really pitched battle to the leadership team and the administration to figure out would that be a good fit so that kind of experience where you're not just rehearsing job and be strong leaders in their field in their passion to be able to tell a compelling story but to also have the skills so that they can be taken seriously so that people can see oh this is a leader who knows how to walk the transformation how do we create a learning community that are transforming know where people change because of them and in the name change each other and they know and watch them track the ways that they're changing some of our
collection area where they suspended solids fall out onto the stylus cautionary now that pertains to claims eight fifteen claim eighteen says that the s getting to the filtration step the two steps in factor and in if you look at the claims and back are they doing some of the dependent claims made clear that thacker is addressing also involves situations we are that filtration step is left out it discloses a system in which there is no filtration step that's part of the plan and then claim two is a dependent claim where the second step that is the same filter is performed suggesting again the first claim is broader than that and doesn't require a performance of the second step out because they're too small right and in addition to what you mentioned judge take there's also this problem that the spray that's coming out is not these dry particles it's droplets that are bigger than the  for days but on top of that the the reference certainly indicates that it is intending to have this effect where the outside of a certain area it the air is clean and there aren't a lot of purples floating around and it makes sense that you would want that you know you're spraying water that is contaminated into the air you would ok thank you thank you is that when they talk about the of the particles suspension forty five a minute meters from the atomizers that doesn't tell us anything about what's in the air that doesn't tell us what saleyard what is the concentration it doesn't even tell us what the threshold own level is you know so i'm urging that that cannot be a basis for taking them and concluding that factor does what our claims c taking suspended that means is that there were no suspended silence entered into the air you know it doesn't mean that they were thrown out the that or never talks about suspended salis falling out never not one time