MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i don't see how i possibly argue with you because your honor what the district court did not do and what this court did not address in the prior appeal was for example the role that the a t p a would play in th the last appeal well i don't think i'm trying to do anything other than articulate that the controlling standard must be applied and that was not a domestic or kill watch way or th was developed regarding this issue evidence for example which indicated that when the investigation in this matter was done and you'll recall that that when you were in the parking garage or that there was a theory for example at work here when the investigator goes to this restaurant and interviews the owner of the restaurant and asks if he recognizes the victim from a photograph the owner states i don't recognize him but i recognize the man next to him in the photograph and honor i would describe it differently and that is when you refer to the district court finding when this case was before the district court originally the district court found over the violation the court was compelled as it wrote to determine in light of this cour of my time above briefly the court did cite strictly in a prior painting in our district there is the controlling supreme court case however the court says in the prior opinion that the absence of this information undercuts the prosecution theory that is that a waiter gave that first of all we know that the defense knew from before this hearing in from after we know that they knew that this way to work at the restaurant we also know that there was no argument you know was searching at any time during the considered the conflicting evidence of both lawyers and made a credibility determination as between those two lawyers that the defense counsel on was more credible and the reasons for it i will confine my reply to the argument that was made so all leave the rest of the argument where it is i guess in so far as we are describing this as a credibility contest again i think if one reviews the magistra evaluation it is based overwhelmingly on documents that were presented to it i don't recall any explicit description of credibility going on here but nevertheless and in so far as we do dispute the findings made by the magistrate there is view our request to this court to evaluate materiality under the controlling statute does not exceed this court's prior decision in any way the court remanded it for a limited purpose meaning that the case was not over its back before this court the a p a controls and strictly overseas green would not allow relief would not compel relief here in a case where no judge applied to the original panel ever thought was to be a case for
succeeded after those test case decisions issued the court at that time indicated that these test cases would have no precedential the case is moving forward with a different theory the if they had a different theory the petitions were a lo specialists are after the evaluation those two individuals are recommended reportedly recommend hole at some sequencing genetic testing to determine whether as to whether or not they are caused if ferrari are so two questions one was autism diagnosed at that point i know you're an artist who was diagnosed previously child's speech and language primers were at fourteen to sixteen months when he in fact was already twenty three much so that indicated that there was a significant delay in the development that those skills and did did the doctors developing the record with respect to your claim that this is that might of condor autism is different right that it should run but that and as i read their reference to snyder it doesn't say ok that was the end of all inquiry with respect evidence now that the fever that occurred according to even the c d c fevers can occur in children seven to twelve days after measles x nation it occurs by to think percent of the population and in this and then there's a discussion of them in a doctor hucks explanation of what occurred after the measles immunosuppression was that first the fever kurt of a hundred and five at one week out watch he was seen again for an hour for the action that would be roughly at nine to ten weeks out and while the special master did really late this year because he did not consider reference to snyder while i think you make a good argument that well he still went back and allowed the information does seem to be a prejudice it does seem to be the attitude of look we looked at arc has them and you know that any kind of autism is never that there isn't current evidence of regression versus there wasn't some regression earlier that he has recovered from no and if you look at the special master went through a very detailed description of the medical records it is that each time the child went t the pediatrician and there's no evidence of progression in fact when the child eventually did it to be seen by developmental specialist both of those specialists made a note in their notes that there is no evidence of regression here so at no time did any child eight years later she based in part his diagnosis of mitochondrial disease on an incorrect factual predicate that the child had had regression seventeen to eighteen months but if you actually look at the medical specifically made mention that there is no evidence of regression in this case and if you if you just look at the medical records your honor they just do not bear after the child lost any skills in ever say that he had a certain amount of words and then lost
so the board with respect to the problem or a problem reviewed claim seventeen eighteen thirty one thirty three thirty four thirty five and conclusory it comes to we go back to the cuts were different yes all right let's assume for the moment that we concluded that you're right the board didn't really explain its basis it just said we promise we've looked at the entire record  issue well i think you're right about the first bird that sentence but to the extent of the boards as we've reviewed this analysis and we agree with  be activated and needs to be a little proactive to make an attempt or ever might be through attentional available options to take action well i think in that case it actually says a little bit different but to this flight as a reserve the right to say that he did have the right to be to challenge out of scope reply with respect to be the motivation to position and the final great decision you read them as the board that anger is by itself really teaches all the different elements and functions through sided with respected investigative tools was not reviewable and likewise i think the supreme court said the same thing so all in the end if the institution isn't is clear as to what the board or its intentions are and
what this case is that it's whether or not mr hubbard stock options have a readily ascertainable fair market value of grant and the reason that we're here it's because of the language and stock option agreements and for your reference in this case the questions that we're going to ask you to address go back to the one point eight three dash seven regulations and the one point four two one dash six regulations which define readily ascertainable fair market value for non publicly traded stock options and as you're aware from the briefing there is a four part number one of the transferable whenever the option holder has the ability to pledge the shares as collateral for a long and in this case the stock option agreement on page two that does give mr delivery to the company of the sale or loan proceeds required to pay the exercise price and i'm sorry i didn't understand any of that what exactly this has to do with years and then either to the stock price is not high enough in his year he doesn't want to exercise it because it's closer to ten dollars below ten whatever  the word transferable has a different meaning in the agreement itself than it does in the regulation and yes there are now why does the regulation prevail over the provision in the agreement that says the simply is a matter of would otherwise provide the regulations govern the tracts treatment and the parties cannot contract out of the tax treatment under the regulations were given the government the court your honor this there is nothing in the regulation that makes this option transferable and in fact beat the stock option agreement paragraph four which my opponent has ignored i take to be taxable on the date of grant the option has to be transferable and there's nothing in the regulation that would counter dick what this agreement says and paragraph four of which is right below the one my opponent was reading from says that this option is nontransferable and moreover specifically provides that during the lifetime of mr hubbard it was only exercisable by him therefore as a pledge which he couldn't do anyway would be meaningless and what he left the employment within the first year or was fired for cause the options would fail and that in itself makes it nontransferable because any transferee if it could be transferred would take it subject to those conditions so so that the par
only for carrying freight and for no sane businessman would give a second thought to risking capital in such a venture as a commercial airline what changed their mind let's begin at the beginning jenny in flight the first few sheets of these times as a matter of fact showed jenna a flying upside down those steps with the inverted centers was something like four thousand dollars each today after the war a lot of japanese were sold as government surplus the pilots who bought them came to be known as barnstormers gypsy fly all over the country they put on shows the wings of a plane hundreds of feet up jumping all with parachutes that sometimes fail to open throwing their fr risking their necks for the benefit of the farmers shopkeepers while children are still on the ground why did they do it one of them tried to explain it many years later he wrote there was a desire i could not explain it was the quantity that led me into aviation in the first place one place for more profitable occupations where i'd have it lay beyond the descriptive words of men were immortality is touch through danger where life where a man is more than man and existence both supremes and valueless at the same and that's how charles lindbergh tried to explain from st louis to chicago and to dream of flying nonstop from new york to paris he knew it was possible he knew he could do it he needed money and a plane by december of one nine hundred twenty well that's today's story just one of many stories of the world through staff i'd like to tell you nice to have been with you and i hope you'll come back soon following
there on retaining to all those from toppling over those we want to the background of our invention section he cited many of them to the patent office but not a single one was applied as rejection the morning has nothing but  picture itself discloses it above the shelf unaccompanied by a shelf in theory you might say well they would have put a shelf in there also but p t o is free to interpret that reference  same way shells do in the world full range of is not something that you could have just several holes for a peg such as that first of all the ring you can mount it the way you do that or because those arms have to flex in order to then as a judge i think the rejection is against you isn't exactly right but one of the two references they cited are just it's just so clear on its face it's practically and you're you're crying that what happened i think when one was picked up for two reasons now walls but if you you cannot apply those eyeball attachments to a range and in addition with if you were to take off the morning you have to bend it flex it out and take it out that are with or as if you've ever seen these clearly gave a different reason they said retains all through them items on the shelf that i don't understand at all that's just from our spec here and the rejection was based on two rover existed prior art and i'm looking at that and i'm having a hard time seeing that that that part supports a rejection one reason was a lot of refrigerator designers like to have shelves on doors as evidenced by all the prior art out there why swords on the door it improves the refrigerator another point they point out a little more in reference teaches another way to intricately moun percolated to this one here at this level but throughout the whole prosecution the general was worried about all these points so we had to keep that in mind so this particular just really aspect albeit it came from a deep penetrating he had to be concerned with that
of having a merit hearing simply decided to charges in order to serve our record again this is a case involving a brain various it seems to me but there are some significant distinctions it seems to me between a  report is the lever approximately three days prior just sentencing it focuses on aggravating and mitigating factors and the language of the pre sentence report really has no direct or the fence counsel in any way that he was going to rule on the merits of the matter without hearing he simply or issued a written order then i my motion to terminate and ordering clear opportunity to raise if you both for the immigration judge and before the board of immigration appeals in fact the brief if you if you look at the administrative record the petitioners brief before the board is attached i misread record page nineteen and it must be not fundamentally unfair i mean i think this sort of lay that out there and so there are these factors in this court cited to one of which was that there are other documents here we do have a judgment a
parole ever has altered her life a capital case in which this case we've used the constitutional issue presented here is that the deadly weapon element of and there is no rational displaying friend that the nevada supreme court could make between a deadly weapon which is pretty much anything anybody says it is in the enhancement staff and the identical language in alamo under as the element of use of a gambling weapon in the batteries just maybe maybe i've got something wrong which is why i want to be a little persistent in my questions i understand that your argument is that  counsel was ineffective for having failed to raise the issues that you're now arguing yes you are all right if that's still then you have to ask the question of prejudice and process if on appeal by appellate counsel under the task of strict one thing there is a reasonable probability that it would have prevailed for members gone back and going off on statutory construction district attorney was present present that argument but the underlying substantive issue i just want to try and make sure that we are clear on this this conduct is a statutory construction case we're making constitutional arguments the not going to consider them because they're not correct because they're not notarized because they're on data i submit that having brought that in mr riley's was entitled it was hearing he didn't get it in state court and he should have gotten it in the district court here and if i can say mine half a minute factually two arguments are factually inconsistent with each other weakens the stronger argument because the stronger argument looking at the record clearly was that the witness that the witness whatever reason should not have been belie plane and even in the end if he did so part two was the defendant prejudiced  that you know that's basically the crux of my argument i don't know how much more i can add to it i will comment briefly on the uncertified issues even though i did not break them first of all you're mentioning one right even after the one w not they were not they were not only inconsistent with the prosecution case they were inconsistent with the defense case and find him to be have to lack credibility so in basically this is a case of ineffective counsel and they can't meet and we believe that because it's ineffective counsel because mr reilly cannot reach either prong under smith the robin issue that was raise there is no evidence of that there's never been a hearing what counsel might have done as a reasonable choice is before this court because counsel is never at that there was never
is ability to meet its burden of proving of the non existence of insurance coverage under new hampshire alone and having in mind the requirements of the new hampshire under and uninsured motorists coverage under our say to sixty four as written odd which would be reviewed by the policy by the actual insured as you mentioned gives any inkling that there would be this kind of coverage it gives total confused including the seventy seven or said to sixty four fifteen no mention a rejection of the new hampshire insurance coverage no rejection form no statement in the declaration no indorsement shown to him for statutory them coverage was rejected the definition of first versus third party coverage which the other side makes a great deal of ensure there's nothing to a word reasonable moreover within the seventy seven pages there are a host of exclusions ten pages of exclusions then it applies and here we have a coverage exception that come right out and says this insurance does not apply to uninsured or under insured motorist law language provide an invariant and when you go to this end of that section you must you must read it in the context of don't undermine the use policy so the reason we're ensured we get to section of the twenty six exclusion say oh maybe this when you have a policy that on its face says it doesn't apply you when coverage that there is an obligation to do anything at all to tell any one hundred then the name to ensure that the named insured has been writing declined you uncover one with respect to the promise of the major premise of your question that the policy tells the sure the insurance will reject it you suggest as i say that that particular sect section is in big use but the answer again still boils down to the company that
evidence that the immigration judge addressed was the fact that when he asked her why she didn't apply timely she said i don't speak english i don't speak spanish and i didn't know what to do that's not all of the evidence it was resented but does that g to the change in circumstances that you think that is evidence to support the funding of changes and that is evidence to support a finding change in circumstances but that's not the only evidence that i provisions shall not be interpreted as applying to constitutional legal heiress and i argued that under that change the court should be able to examine whether extraordinary this this matter must be remanded because although i would love the court to determine that we met extraordinary circumstances definition this court can't do that but in making that decision the immigration judge committed three errors that process violation secondly to the extent he did consider any of those circumstances he based his determination on speculation and that also is a legal error that is reviewable because it implicates due process concerns the family if they would like to proceed together without counsel present because it was really zacharias the sign you know i think at the time the six years of age said sure a judge whatever you want but did that only consolidate the proceedings did that it to any degree how he considered the additional evidence aside from aside from the fact that she didn't speak english into this expansion to know what to do and i submit that and cases such as this that where the underlying determination is not reviewable it's even reopening when they agreed to have the cases considered under the father's case and they were all directed so that is a waiver of the issues that her the areas that were cation should have been considered only argument they made with counsel regarding change circumstances was that the change in circumstances had to do with the fact that she learned that it's right that states the question of isolation was addressed by the immigration judge her arguments were addressed by the immigration judges that very few people who come here speak the language and know the law but the bar applies to all of them and the bar applie to reiterate that there were other bases for the finding of extraordinary circumstances articulated that i j did not address and that was the rape and how and from her culture it i can't imagine what it would be like for her to describe that the only evidence in the record was from a professor davies who discussed why that was unavailable and we argued below
pre closing that jacobs if i understand the record had contested neander lying independent claim nine throughout and there then went back and  another question and that is with respect to the claims that the district court found obvious there are claims struction issues here and it struck me that the claims of prejudice shoes which most here now are you trying to argue we're not arguing the law or in fact i conceded and can you show me for example where the delayed compression relief construction of a claim or did i want to be where you argued is a question of claim construction because it seems to me that one of the major differences between the parties is how to construe these claims for purposes of the obviousness analysis and mr co too but i'm want you to address the re exam is evidentally for some reason was upheld and kind of the point that judge dykes making there's an
one hundred of his other college students he's wearing a jacket from his university and they're there trying to approach the government parliament building where the meeting was held these students wanted to read some demands changed and  he you know he can't claim that there's simply generalized a random possibility of her persecution and he has to show that there's a particular rest that his situation is different indonesia people were we were trailing in our car and managed to get into a crowd of riots and people threw rocks at us those people nobody knew they were this man he was harmed because they're trying to change the congress going on inside now i do not know if the if the government troops respond appropriately or like us forces when we do what they do have an obligation to defend government property and there was  run his friend was killed and potentially killed right next to him again even if mr run down and then hit and thank god he wasn't that would not equate to persecution because he's not being targeted on account of anything he may have gone there and the students may have yes ma'am i believe i believe that's what she's referring to they didn't take this well and they could have been robbers when no one knows who these gentlemen were it was a two minute incident the record shows that petitioners friends thought it was going on so it looked like a like an open area and these two gentlemen stopped and  while he was in indonesia for the two years after this this riot he held steady jobs he did live at the same residence you've always lived that that's was asylum application says he might have moved around a bit but he was at least there intermittently he also had a steady job up until the time he departed he was that no trouble getting a passport he was able to court his wife and get married there and they came over together so there was no compulsion there he wasn't thinking in terms of the conditions and indonesia think record so he has not been threatening any man or if his parents were letters that's up some people have called asking for him but we don't know who these people are again  credibility finding that nothing is done demonstrates past persecution nothing is shown demonstrates past persecution or a well known it's your future persecution so you can look at the facts there and determine that it is the burden of proof great case not a