MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
fifteen improves on fourteen and says where that never graceful every resource is configured to recognize that the request indicates a need for wireless delivery of the content and then to respond to the request by delivering the portion of the after going through each of the elements individually the courts just concludes for all the independent claims and all the deep and he claims that he ordered combination is routine international with no analysis whatsoever accept data over the internet that would provide content what with the way they would do that it would infringe if you were just streaming if you're just  received over a communication network from a handheld device is exactly the same for functional components here and they describe any system that communicates information wirelessly that is that's like saying for this compared with what they're trying to take from the uk i read this but i see nothing is added to our story now but what are they trying to take every way that you can stream media whether it approaching as full of a lot of but if you read their brief money they say they say you can still have a transistor radio and you can still go back twenty years he carry around your cd collection and a portable cd player that's what they say you're left with so if you read their papers they're pretty clear that what they're taking away is every way to stream content to a wireless device and this notion of whether it's a personalized on figure one are arranged in the most generic way possible right you have information it's stored in storage it's managed by server it's communicated by wireless network to a handheld routine engine vention as of two thousand the answer is it can't finally work here again on a rule twelve motion and it does feel to my client like an ambush like there are so many issues that haven't been addressed i believe that
the rule with have secretly amended it out in december two thousand and fifteen to require that cancel certify it examined the report of proceedings or both the guilty plea and the sentencing hearing in our case the well i don't know because he didn't tell us and there are about one hundred thirty five pages and recorded proceedings that preceded the guilty plea i don't know if you've read those i don't know i don't know what he read he read some of the reporte pay and the sentencing hearing but in our case since they happened on the same date we can just as soon that you read the report of proceedings for the sentencing hearing but were in fact confined to the work on his of the certificate and
to be done on the rule eleven if this were compounded by day inaction of the united states and also when the government gives the version on how they would have ruined inference that he had washed the drugs down the toilet before the police entered the the apartment because it was a delay of seven or eight minutes before they could  first volume of the financing and next i he says your honor i have no doubt that the court conducted the rule eleven hearing the way it does every time he meaning my client is not saying that the court did something wrong or that the united states did moving on to his arguments regarding the intent to distribute would like to emphasize that the intent to distribute is not reliant solely on this court and its opinions has said there are many factors  drug logo there was extensive drug paraphernalia that were scales it's coming agents there's no evidence that the defendant used drugs personally as are pointed out that he has no history of drug use or treatment or inches to maybe a foot or two of the drugs and finally of course the last factor is the history of drug distribution and recall there wasn't there there was some cash i think it was a fairly small amount the hundreds and that was in that in the bedroom also there were several prepaid calling cards in the jury heard evidence that those are often used by drug dealers because it makes the calls more difficult to trace multiple cell phones and then as i was is that he made a proper statement of the law on the record after consulting with the probation officer and that's at volume two of the appendix at one forty nine he said the revocation need not be consecutive to the the evidence later on the matter he got and your honor that's what i'm saying it's timely i just wanted to mention something this is the kind of rule eleven is not to be taken lightly and
it already agreed that it applied it was recommended by the probation officer there seem to be some confusion over the guidelines calculation and not including the safety valve adjustment which the government ha itself other than the fact that it may have been confused  said anything about minor role and got to a conclusion that said i conclude that minor role is not appropriate i understand you have an argument saying well my role so clearly appropriate the bad air but it seems to me what you're really saying in this certainly true there are cases where you've got the mule coming through the border from tijuana and they're usually identified with lots or rolls but we have cases where the travel was quite as grand or ambitious as this is not somebody who's being paid five hundred bucks to drive a truck across the border to somebody spending several days with plane tickets were several thousand dollars traveling thousands and thousands of miles and an activity that surely up his full time for an extended period of time this isn't an afternoon's activity that's true we have cases where granted courier is a courier but courier in this case is considerably more ambitious than our usual mule across the border case just meant when you compare his culpability to others in this international drug war when it was i suspect there are others that we do not know who have similarly lower echelon activities and indeed may have activities that take much less time spending an awful lot of time on out his entire to thank you trial was that he did not know he was carrying drugs the fact that post trial prior to sentencing he finally admitted his guilt and the government recommended safety valves did not mean he was substantial quantity of drugs it's similar to what occurred here independent going from peru to thailand to l a and originally starting in the philippines for those reasons the district court every indication of recognizing and granting a minor role adjustment until we got to the bottom line of the bottom line didn't add up and suddenly shifted gears without any explanation exact give you pause or what like what you do about that it does your honor i agree is the way that it is somewhat troubling that the court initially appeared to give the adjustment and then decided not to however we don't i don't know what what the court was thinking perhaps when he said minor role he meant run together more than they run separate that's true when the court could have he could have given both here to the elected not to and it is not clear on this record as to his reason for doing that but i think the fact  not support the minor role reduction and for that reason i don't think that it needs to be
that is untrue why because we know from the truth of the factual of the factual basis of this case that if there was the evidence was presented of to present to the jury because as a intelligent defense counsel will contemplate the fact that these issues are presented to the jury room prejudice is quite it's classic yes it can the only question that we're left with it is was that person in this case the answer to that question is no then the question just walk and the answer to that is because the defendant didn't want to
on this case seriously but but but the defense counsel did not ask for the inquiry so let's assume that the judge should done nothing would you be here now saying
one year that's the maximum if you're never taken off probation that's the most that you can ever serve when mr gomes was violated and came before justice of broad now as a district federal judge in san seems to me that you can't be committed for more than one year and if that is true i guess the look at the maximum that we think the state should have given him or the actual mouth that he received i believe in this case you would look at the actual actual amount that he received under a jointer on the fundamental question as to whether the listing of manslaughter when other parts of the same statute talk about voluntary and involuntary indicates that
before the four you get into the you're prepared feel like you to work with the concept of whether mccoy versus louisiana really is the governing case if you on this and i'd like you to discuss the released one mental health expert said this guy had no exactly what's going on i think the act was premeditated he made the sheer out of part of his bed stand the lawyer was you can't get crazier than that he was facing a mountain of forensic evidence that he killed these three people and he wanted to put on the school offense that the law enforcement were in the cage in some kind of conspiracy  like the rule the government would like is if you're crazy if you have an absolute right to put on a mental health defense but if you want to put on a really crazy defense other than mental health you can't put it on and we're go have an opportunity to consider what we have to decide here so the case just argued is submitted we thank all counsel
if they had looked further that's what they would have found you all rely upon united states versus miller for the proposition that offered do not have a duty to investigate the records thoroughly to see whether such information but in the tell the issuing judge that mr beale had lied to them wri a second on what you're posing counsel talked about this appeal based upon whether or not these officers are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law as a matter of law and pearson says there's a two step aspect of that number one you've got it so what is unconstitutional and number two you have to show a case or cases that are close enough to this situation that any reasonable officer would have known there was a violation of their constitutional rights in this case that you would cite that indicates that the constitutional violation that occurred here was well known up and after did that he or she would don't perfectly well they had violated the in this case the homeowners constitutional right but of justice scalia said only the plainly incompetent would mish this kind of thing so that regard to whether judges could ever be that way let's talk about where is the case or other cases best don't you have to establish that they were either intentionally deceptive or have a reckless disregard for the truth isn't that isn't that your with again were these are these are statements made by the affianced that are subject to interpretation and where we're dealing with something like qualified immunity and appeal of this nature do we give any kind of deference to the officers dewey interpret them in the worst possible way what is our burden rely in any way that we would you know we just did all the review these are close questions you can read these things in different ways that that affect our analysis for purposes of qualified immunity
the judge relied to a great deal on speculation about respondent the position i why would this be interested in him after a four year absence from me when that very fact is sufficient to show that if he goes back to india he will in fact or if you just come in contact with the police to help me i want you to tell me what's wrong with it what is wrong with that is if it's a conclusion without doing an analysis of how the government submission that is the country conditions report india therefore the immigration judge found this the evidence did not help him and he was not credible the immigration judge however also found in the alternative that even if you were body to be deemed credible even if they were to assume that he had job or lack thereof as well as how it affects people who are sikhs and other people in the in this case the immigration judge looked look at his claim and said you know here's the reasons why you know the situation includes while it was very bad in the early in gotten better that there's you know not enough evidence that people who supported this party will be persecuted by the police including job if you return as such the immigration judge found that you know looking at his case and looking at this mission from the in the second decision there's nothing except country reporters what am i supposed to do with them is to say how can this me an individualized determination   that right well yes if the if the
what he did and then certain consequences flowed from that's not a violation of the constitution if you attach it to a bad motive that shouldn't change the result a consul yes i'm sorry i'm i was so for a time i'm not go
does make the determination with regard to jurisdiction and perhaps the fence correct because the other defendants remain in the case yes that's correct your honor so it had to make that decision it wasn't it wasn't accomplishing anything in terms of saving time or trouble or difficulty by  personal jurisdiction i think it is the court believed that subject matter jurisdictions could not be found in the case then it should it should have something case fact i think the their view of the case of any case is that attempting to say a moment ago and i'll try and finish now i believe there is an economy not literally to the whole case it doesn't necessarily relieve the judge of just fighting the full issue but a very important one of the party to do is getting a quick and proper decision  personal jurisdiction issue the issue is properly presented properly decided and should have the benefit of that decision it should not have to abide a later decision because more complicated issues  here this is a unique case in which the jurors are the subject matter jurisdictional issue was an issue of state law the personal jurisdiction issue was in essence an issue of federal law because california problem except for the fact it was a filing i don't recall having been mentioned in the papers and i do not recall but it was mention that oral argument i believe it may have been but i don't know about that because there's no transcript of the or
and the control room of the alternate headquarters controllers are busy tabulating the reports from them the planning staff will determine additional targets to be struck in subsequent attacks like one of the latest totals on aircraft return twelve hundred nineteen aircraft retrieve the recovery base nine hundred seventy one and all losses enemy territory as of two hours a goal ninety three missing forty nine major of these four hundred fifty three on a common four aircrafts are there should be fifty three b fifty two still airborne the missing figure is high because service communications that you're annoyed africa broken down completely forty seven's and fifteen b fifty two was were on the ground that shotgun six hours ago we had no previous report from here now that may reduce our missing numbers to three hundred forty two but of course we'll have to check t twenty one bases the united states and forty two would be available bases overseas communications in the overseas areas of fed but these are the figures we have available places in the united states seventy two and overseas areas sixty seven bases in use in the united states seventy two and overseas areas thirty seven bases damaged in the united states twenty overseas twenty eight this figure includes all missile sites bases destroyed in the united states forty six and overseas areas sixteen norm damaged  our overseas date is unreliable but we do know that there are two of us will bases in north africa three in the united kingdom three in alaska five and canada in the northeast area and two in the far east are sure there are more sir but that's all we can back up with reports how many tankers are operating from the canadian bases seventy three so let's not schedule any more bombers or tankers in there they'll be looking for cripples for sure that do operations by and a number of air force control guess what your leaders total on aircraft losses dutch mission to the ninety three lost over enemy territory we know we've lost three hundred eighty seven bombers two hundred thirty seven tankers on the ground some of these are just returned from their missions two hundred fifty eight of these bombers were b fifty two s that's bad but it's a lot better than it might have been sir there are no other questions intelligence is not ready
the test results demonstrated that he was entitle to with what those test results received but over the back from indicated any increase in the severity of our condition and the cardiologist recognized that that was challenge before the board because the agency error is implicit in the action taken by the veterans court in response to the issue right it would be i'm trying to make the distinction in the president of this core base of our overall suma it is that the question of administrative error can be looked at as it was in was that situation if there was an existing statute that says in these circumstances we would fine for the better and you know we but that's not the situation here we don't have there wife who had survived her husband's request for revision and the husband had not properly pled that to put out an ad or are that she had the car or that the board about the scope of the rating so you're saying that there was never an argument that as an effect of date issue right no what i'm saying is that it is not what was presented to the board was not affected a question it was an initial reading question what the rating should have been in the individual up for of two thousand and three to do thousands that and there is a fourteen month period with in that timeframe
nation in the assignment not on the nichols holly theory which is that the sexual quid pro quo is itself an adverse employment action that's that series that wasn't your trial entire case and the entire theory was based on his had that not occurred the ensuing acts which resulted in her also meant terminations would not have happened and that was the theory from the beginning and that was that  supported because mcdonnell douglas has not been applied in a situation where an employee has submitted to the threat but in addition there is a logical that and the problem that mr riley affirmatively flexed his power by bragging about his ability to be able to demote someone by reducing their performance evaluations it was within the context of that conversation that he then began with his sexual don't want the job and that is logically incoherent as john is can understand i don't want to i have to compete does not mean i don't want my job it was simply an expression of respect for another coworker and indicating that they did made it for decision for a reason which was not prohibited under title seven it's positive of the case that finding alone is not is another basis to up hold the trial court's decision the finding of fact was not clearly i only have one brief point this is not a new case that appellate bandwagon is bringing before that is quite the same facts same story that went through all that occasion and that went through all the pretrial discovery and briefing this is indeed if you want to see it as a new issue there is a new law that provides for the correct application and protection of these types of situations thank you just to the point i made earlier seventeen years i've been hearing lawyers say that
good morning your honor thank you randall hunter for the united states your honor is the only issue that is properly before this court on appeal is whether mr acas testimony was properly stricken by the district court none of the other issues the  to the challenge those amounts the taxes were reported on the returns they did not pay the taxes reported on the returns consequently the i r s assessed the liabilities and interest and penalties against them and a proceeding to collect with the with assesses and that was done on july nineteenth two thousand and three and the complaint by the united states in this case was filed within the ten year period of limitations you want to speak to the issue that is before us with regard to mr aka the district court completely within its discretion in striking his testimony he did not review any accounting records that ms wang prepared or that in their american middle and had the us who are say those records were lost destroyed all he did was talk to the us troops and prepare new returns and that is completely no basis for an expert an expert testimony at all and he did not prepare any kind of report to show how he got to his number considered it oh yes of course yes of course but it was totally without basis if the court has no other questions i don't see anything thank you thank you but more rebuttal counsel
mucci is liable under a personal undertaking that he gave to my client here to national regarding their mechanic's lien claim and whether the assignment of the judgment ultimately to my client task here because the the standard is the manifest weight of the evidence and if it's in the evidence as it is against the manifest weight if an opposite result is clearly evidence and in this case i think from the evidence that opposite result is clearly evident the first piece of evidence to discuss is the undertaking itself we have competing testimony regarding any undertaking we have mr fiber who is on the personal undertaking mr domenici and pantra said in his testimony it looked like his handwriting but he didn't recall signing it that's the sum of the evidence the tragedy had in concluding machine that was sending it to em i'm i'm hopeful that you have a personal understanding of fax machines and would understand that when you receive a fax and there's a header you may not always be with them just say that that was one of  testimony that a gap undertaking is an undertaking that of a party who is selling property gives to cover their short period of time up to perhaps a month between when a title commitment is given and when the sale closes because there's a a lapse there between when events occur that might create a cloud on title and where they might show up so to cover that they give or get undertaking and if you look at those gap undertakings they're really very general in nature they just say for this time period the undertaking here that we're seeking to enforce the personal undertaking that mr fiber said he insisted on consistently his testimony says personal undertaking this is an undertaking against a specific cloud the united painters mechanic's lien and foreclosure judgment for that reason mr faber insisted on a personal guarantee so that the trial judge was when he made the conclusion that because that but i don't recall signing the affirmative evidence from mr fire and the negative evidence from mr di mucci when weighed together the greater weight of the evidence is in favor of our side in that mr domenici absolutely executed that personal undertaking and is liable for it where does that meet the standard in this case this court can enter judgment since it was a bench trial as to the other document if the court is not not convinced that just be undertaken the evidence regarding the undertaking alone is battle sent from letters in february march of two thousand and four each time each one of those letters was sent each one of the parties who sent it mr vogel or mr farber again offered affirmative evidence we sent this we sent this in this way and we didn't get a response mr de rocci on the other hand testified under adverse examination that he didn't recall receiving any one lawyers told my lawyers that i had nothing to worry about i wasn't liable for anything so i just disregarded them so he's cocky he's presenting conflicting testimony himself first he says i don't recall them then he says i didn't feel i had the respon