MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
you might say i do i like kids like they like the way ahead without a lot unable to make decisions with them we have a good chance of success just don't want me to be part of that dog i can't take a girl out without a car lots of people do it you're not making yourself very popular let's just sit how can you be popular without a car car how can you be popular if you can't keep your promises to your own son can you be an honest man dad i'm all mixed up what can i do now ye i was mixed up tonight too when i was driving your mother i kept thinking about you and about the promise you brought i would keeps i wondered how i could i wondered what you would think of me you see what happens when we have ideals that aren't clear and why jennifer think about some other idea some big ideals that  to the knowledge that serves mankind and greyer a compelling religious idea you have lifted men from primitive tribes of great rich living so you see when ideals and sound and clear they can help us to do some wonderful things even simple ideas for just keeping promises of being popular you know something still i wanted to be popular but i never asked myself what it means now and i've got to be clear about i've got to figure it out
new i understand that both sides here agreed that we should just head for rowing until after parish other proceedings are complete maybe your adversary just figured there's no point  in the in the third count a conviction  that says in furtherance of any such crime possesses a firearm because in the two billy cases for example i think there was a gun in the trunk of a car and there was a gun and other part of the apartment so there's no connection there was the
to what seemed to be an endless procession of state limousines they moved quickly and yet with fantastic moment i just had to get a closer look at one of those earth
that would make a private pardon in the same circumstances as we got from reading the allegations of your complaint why evil for the actions of the murder the f b i the government what massachusetts case indicates that that type of relationship not a cosco below relationship purely a relationship  as an informant all right is the basis for one liability on the massachusetts law well when you look at what happened there are a special relationship exception in mass law in that you were arguing that this person was and under their control this is what you would do well i did bad because the other side raised that response and there it is and i will then try to get that out withdraw my question if you're saying that you only raised it in response to what the other side said and should get back to church sell us question which is what is your it's it's the everything i can write can you can live and what i want to say is that isn't enough ok that is not ok to get me to the next her but see that's not what the supreme
this case presents the issue of whether or not a south carolina attempted murder is a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines i think we're all familiar with the senate saying formula that we have to use to the elements of this offense do not require the use attempted use or threaten use of physical force against the person of another it's clear on its face  there is no suggestion that this case is that the statute is divisible so as an individual statute it does not meet the categorical definition of crime of violence to kill which was the component that was absent from the medal stand case because there was no intent to kill but it here in the south carolina code you yana the answer to that question recognize what this court has sat and read and or be incompetent about castleman thing i wanted to tell you that i appreciated on page nineteen of of a tough row to plow isn't it ah i'm right it would take an end and particularly on light of councilman i mean i think that that's your position is much stronger without without and talks about being across something can be a crime of violence when you have even a situation like poisoning which doesn't involve the direct application of force but certainly now i understand our position would require you to reject the three prior pinions you've talked about we do thank for purposes of this argument and we have to make this argument that chasse woman does not have any impact on the  career criminal realm that it was solely limited to the to the context in which that case was decided that's our argument that's how we intend there was a broader proposition that arose out of the out of that context because the critical factor was a person who's going to poison another one another person didn't actually  that when the court was making the distinction between indirect indirect there is no distinction between direct use of force and use of force in the castleman case that what they were discussing was in the common law to also agree that for purposes of the question presented in this case it's our position that this court's previous decision in dinkins virtually controls this case because in that particular case this court held that south
the other two courses of standing the government opposes that i have not yet suffered a concrete particularized injury disputing my claim that unless i go to my reward suddenly and quickly i will certainly be subjected to the turned down thank you very much good morning my name is rachel valid and i'm an assistant u s attorney for the eastern district of new york representing the defendants at pelleas in this matter the district court correctly dismissed mr libby's challenge to the affordable care act because mr libby has not a ledge a concrete or particular allies injury which is actual or imminent but instead would be conjecture all or hypothetical neither is mr libby asserted third party standing which still require
's house the other night i didn't realize how well he handled the introduction but as i look back at least cameron my teacher during the first tour the other two had never met frank parents but i knew everyone there so i said good evening mrs north good evening peggy it's nice to see you again thank you i stepped aside while frank introduced the other seven this is my mother production they were also suffering right to the point we can all probably learn something from your experience just be sure you didn't miss anything we can compare both these occasions with some of the points  t that doing it sure let's start with the one about making the woman's name first when introducing a man to it remember the mess you made of that one you got all mixed up to start with your friends got the idea all right but introductions like to meet so and so or let me make you acquainted with so i'm told are considered awkward anyway let's see how frank introduced his father to a teacher addressing the first he said miss cameron this is my father how do you do miss camer there is one exception to the rule that you know that i want to introduce you to joan would thank addressed his father first out of respect even here he phrased the introduction so that he introduced the man to the girl that had that one again dad i want to introduce you to joan would suppose i could want to introduce me to joe he could take you through it wouldn't matter national have a very good reason for saying something else stick to the accepted form and just say how do you do have you do and how do you do if you'll excuse me i have a chance to put
as a teenager with his parents mr tucker is now before this court on a petition for review of the affirming and final order of removal against him as the government has acknowledged the sole basis for his removal subsection so i guess i'm i'm saying that i think like a judgment does a subcategory and we know from the judgment that he wasn't convicted of the whole statute was convicted as a subsection of a sub category and that i would say which is call your attention to the specific portion of the statute under which he was a victim which is the entire statute as opposed to the specific subsection and i think it's reasonable to read the statute our way because you know arizona  federal law broad enough to encompass this particular statute and i think from yesterday's supreme court case it's shows a little bit of reluctance for the federal law to be over read overly broadly t encompass behavior that may not have been obviously included in such and such a such an offense and might also note that my client proceed in these cases it really doesn't matter very much because this is still a controlled substance statute that's really all you need if you want to get into the solicitation aspects of the statute as we point out in our brief it's clear from the judgment and from the text of the statute that this that she was less convicted vera both the general solicitation statute and this one so i suppose there's some argument that that am this alone isn't our garcia you have before you a particularly good board order this board order is thorough careful it applies the lord the lore correctly it reaches the right result it deserves to be upheld by this court and we respectfully ask you to do that and to deny the petition for a
no time now frank you know perfectly well he has to work on his arithmetic before he goes to bed we are going to work on it together every night until he begins to get passing grades we agreed on that time we didn't  feelings of failure and weakness and maybe way picture to begin with he wants to be punished i guess you're right as usual i thought i could get out of this  stand anything that makes him important you mean they're going to send you their full coverage because of her life she was made to feel unimportant by your mother kind of the child doesn't know any better but to accept all this is a matter of fact kid to that boy a grown up has become a person who let you down or punishes you wait a minute tommy tommy senses that his mother uses him as a weapon against his dad so frank you know perfectly well he has to it was a risk but take before you go to bed ambition to be a good mother you can use that ambition i know i can after that stealing episode she's going to try almost anything how is it going very well i think she has begun to go into the relationship with her husband quite frankly and objectively pretty soon i believe she will start talking about her mother more openly understanding the boy will be a layer that will be hardest for her it should be easier for her to understand his problems when she understands her own if you can just get her to let up on him give him some air over zoned a breeze i'm sure we can help him a lot that hostility won't disappear overnight but we can do a lot for it i guess you did i like the question you asked me sometimes especially after a match as i'm right now but i thought you wanted to go for it just last night you're all excited about swimming and sleeping in a tent have you changed your mind not a jam please or what is the matter i don't know what you go on new york's i didn't go to camp for what in the world is new york got to do with whether you go to camp or not we'll be back in three weeks or even sooner if your father finishes his business quickly now i have to go and can't go i certainly don't understand you did you talk talk to marshall about camp tell me have you ever watched you heard what i asked how you talked to dr marshall about camp i asked you a question dr marshall says i don't have to tell you what we talk about tommy you well as a matter of fact you don't have to if you don't want to i just thought i could help you but i almost forget time is a good boy and if he's given half a chance i'm sure you'll prove it even never a good boy what's that mentally healthy boy maybe a boy who is learning to express his feelings without hurting himself or others is just beginning to find such help because he is being understood and appreciated and respected but such understanding doesn't always require the services of clinics or doctors of trained psychologist more and more as parents and teachers are learning to accept children as human beings who naturally react with fear and anger when they are denied the love and understanding that they need a good boy not sugar and spice and not all puppy dog tails tommy is a real person
tentative counsel did not serve the government with the motion to withdraw the plea and they didn't submit to the court until the day there was a lot of problems with the way his new camp will handle this matter to act in a way which further some object or purpose of the conspiracy is that that person is not there by the chemical conspirator so if you look carefully at the district court's rulings which began on page ninety six to nine to the jury does fit very well within the client's declaration as essentially his the fence here that he's an innocent naive dupe who was manipulated by these individuals and you committing some criminal wrong that he didn't know willfully ignorant of what hath now it's not that the deliberate ignorance and structure that would have been if they could have been given would only show that he acted knowingly but to be in a conspiracy you have to do it with the specific intent to advance the object so there is some divergence here between the law and the district court's findings and the standard the supposed to be applied liberally disposed to be applied freely and i would ask point that mr karr made and that is whether it was appropriate for the district court judge to make the credibility test and to have based on the evidence presented at trial and as well  that the rule eleven it is fundamental that the district court in evaluating the motion to withdraw the guilty plea must make a determination as to whether a fair and just reason exists and after that only he did not call the attorney to testify in support of the motion and it was clear that she basically had a change of heart
seems that way when you look at what happened with the development of you know the way that many catholics report entered into the case where they were a majority of one party that was able to make litigation decisions without a unanimous vote and they seem to be inclined to accomplish through that means what they couldn't accomplish under the statute so they were didn't put up a substantive defense against the plenary injunction and by the time we actually offer offer that substantive defense and the district court rejected it and then by the time we get to be offered of you know consent decree initially there's no suggestion that that was agreed to unanimously after the fact there was a ratification that was done  that somehow the underlying dispute was moot and therefore the consent decree wasn't necessary the proper way to dispose of that would not be to dismiss the appeal but to vacate the injunction to vacate the decree and then remand with instructions t effort to defend it so i'm not even sure what to say at this point because you know the points that we've made are pretty far or under budget in that regard so you know that's you know i think procedurally that we can do is lay out the options for the court  and try to enjoy the questions you've got but i'm not sure what to argue against at this point  intent by the board and not in the acting outlined the reasons why the board did not believe that the failure to do an actual vote centers was not discriminatory so we put forward for the court your view the basis for which that an accurate statement but again there is no evidence in the record that the litigation strategy taken by the board was ever disagreed to or opposed by the minority on board and what happened after the fall  away from the six satellite go centers that are required for general elections you have another example sort of the board and that you know all practical reality isn't going to happen anytime soon and it certainly cannot happen under indiana law for political reasons because indiana law no longer necessary
is the helots contention that the trial court in arriving at the figure of twenty twenty thousand six hundred eighty five gobblers included the  the mistake of well all that was made in this matter is that the trial court on only consider gird the amount that represented the taxable and social security benefit social security disability benefit received by mr day in twenty nine amounted to twenty four thousand five hundred and ten dollars if you use that picture which adjusted income amount of forty two thousand dollars for the year twenty two and in other words that properly calculated figure would be moribund double the amount benefit a month that f the time was i believe one thousand nine hundred fifty dollars and a fifteen hundred dollar amount that came from other opposed to the income that the court found of for two thousand and ten of again the twenty thousand roughly twenty thousand seven hundred dollars so that was  your honor again because of this important distinction between social security disability benefits and the tax a poll question of social at what point then does the retirement savings kick in is this what it's for is for retirement and in the is this couple wait is let's say middle aged ok if some point the retirement is going to have to kick in and be depleted loses her earning capacity no further maintenance they had a normal retirement age at sixty six sixty seven for mr day he still has statistically and you can fifty fifty so mrs day's exactly the same out of retirement savings now plus another ten or eleven years to earn more turn a better social security so it will all be tyrant age sixty six ok now mary there roots non marital retired i understand which the court had no authority to divide i understand that as well another question for you what about the sixteen hundred dollars a month neatness really forces her to expend more than she is actually taking in each month and i think you made an argument that she can borrow money during the me what what about thirty eight thirty nine thirty eight hundred has to exhaust his funds i don't have to touch any of mine they can continue to earn as i am the really the straightforward comparison for you have a lady who makes evie three thousand dollars per year hauling makes twenty fifty percent of mr day's out federal so security will be taxed because he makes more with the word of maintenance or with the withdrawal of the exhaustion of those savings he makes more than thirty four
upon the court's findings versus the defendant's right to jury trial on any factor which would raise his sentence from the basic offense under the guidelines we now believe that that was sentence and that's exactly what i'm saying now now however that's not for us necessarily as lawyers to me i want to go back what would we do with that well this is exactly what i was about to or accept at least if i indicated as a lawyer i have certain view of the case i have not actually conferred with my client on this particular issue and given the state of the law at this point in time and i believe that before i tell the court that i am asking the court not to send it back i need to do that and that is what i was about to say if i could have a forum or that was open to use there's no guarantee that you would not do that and i think that's what but danger to him because he will be perceived that is there only are you are you telling us because you don't think th reason to believe that they going to be any bigger than you acknowledge that and absolutely assertion that we have no reason to believe it would be any different than maybe you could go back there without risk well i think that perhaps maybe clear that what your position is with us should we be firm in reverse and want you should not not on a mandatory rights issue you know i don't think you should reverse and i don't think it should go back to judge cry and for a whole we manage but i think that i need to confer with my client and put on the record his position i don't think that i can officially ask this court to not
you show came that early april morning at an air base in colorado forty fine fortresses lined the four thousand men march out for a final inspection they train long and hard for the ships the four hundred men who fly them and the thirty six hundred who work to keep them flying now the three fifty first bombardment group is ready by the dawn's early light it assembles for overseas combat you're on your way job as is it minute instructions and we're off the compass points north east sergeant major says they are a half is handing over the field it is everything up forward punched under the no but the canadian pilot says it's a sweet flying ship yes sir a dangerous all purpose aircraft this one for twenty years
because her counsel serves a motion to extend the deadline for filing the brief on the wrong the government offered in this case prior to the due date for filing the briefs petition or counsel court if one was to file a motion that was denied the motion would be denied and then there would be an order saying you have some time to file your research that would be shorter perhaps than the three weeks that may be extended and you made an assertion here that the attorney is excused because they are generally granted where in the record is that i would like to be more precise with my words that these types of directions as to what to do in instances where you would need of an extension of time to file your brief and in that this case that twenty one twenty one that the b i will not  honor will not act on the motion but there was a who was there to serve on the wrong our case there was zero for the right court there's the wrong office in in so if there was something wrong with the substance of the motion or something unusual about the substance of the manner and it would have preserved ms corps right to actually have the only instrument she had to advance your case before the be a and that's by filing a brief she was greatly prejudiced by this and there because he he basically filed it in the wrong place that is and how to file an extension motion with this court with the district court this court would say well that's not proper service same thing happened there he followed with the district council instead of with the board and the board said well that doesn't count you know where you're supposed to follow and he admitted he admitted explicitly that he made a mistake the court i think that the decision this case is controlled by the standard to review that is w there an abuse of discretion did the board follow its regulations well we believe the board acted soundly within its discretion by an under eight you see a bar one thousand three point two one which  so where this counsel was provided written notice and i point the court to page thirty one of the record under following instructions the very first paragraph page thirty one of the record pacifically states unless you receive a board notice renting your extension request your brief will remain due on the date stated above thus counsel was on notice exactly what the rules w wrong opposite of the district council and the second thing is i think when the court reviews whether or not the board abused its discretion in not only has to review the denial of the motion for the extension but also the