MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that motion was also unopposed by government addition the board's may twenty second two thousand and three decision denying that mr gz motion to reconsider to allow him to apply for torture convention is not properly before the court
not justified by the facts and that the standards set by the united states sentencing guidelines there was nothing to suggest that that standard was inadequate in the case went back to district court and i think that that has some important repercussions because it has repercussions on the first issue of whether or not the district court ceded this court's mandate because i look at the issue  says that that the first time that he imposed on us under the mandatory guidelines sounds sentencing system that he felt obliged to operate within in the confines of that and that apparently he felt that this criminal history increase was interpretation that while it may not have been adequate to consider that for departure or sufficient for departure under the guidelines system that it didn't enter into his assessment of whether or not it was reasonable sounds and i think that that dispels this tamp to do in this case we see attempted to articulate what his reasoning was in this case and i think that ultimately as he as he explained it at the second son seen his concern really  mr bad marriage within the original guideline range that that would have any effect on other cases maybe any other cases that come
appeals this morning he sat with us many times before and was with us on wednesday and we really appreciate his assistance this morning  after that be here the st three appeals that will reconstitute the court should not require really any interruption judge will join us before we have finished the your cases we've read your brief the authority cited in your graves at least portions of the records you have limited time of this morning you should feel free to get straight to the heart of your argument and embrace your most important point please do listen out for the court room deputy about when your time is about to expire and if the at the deputy tells you that your time has expired but you're still answering  question from the court you should feel free to finish your answer but do be mindful of the time limit st appeal this morning is united states  the court colleagues are shall be half the united states this was a consensual encounter as a district court found at the point at which knife contente was none of the factors that this court looks at to determine if an encounter is consensual point towards it being anything but a consensual encounter of those had not activated their patrol cars lights or siren had not displayed their weapons had not touched night had not asked for retained his identification and in fact had not spoken to night at all let alone with harsh language or no story to tell and they had numbers on how much how much weight should we put on the fact that the location of the patrol car made it very difficult or at least somewhat difficult for supported by the record nice testified that he parted car in that spot before and that when he normally pulled out of the thought he would back up a little bit and then pull straight forward he further admitted that the patrol car did not pull directly behind his car and that he counsel discussion of she was asked whether the fact that he got out of the car and went into the house demonstrates is a reasonable person would not of felt that they were approach him and the fact that he would have had to have walked by an officer to be changes nothing because the supreme court and tracy said if you're on a bus and in order to leave the bus you have to walk by an officer
yes i understand that and what my argument my argument in that regard griefers back to the fact that to the first argument which is that the prosecutor reached the agreement that the prosecutor was the one who breached the agreement and that therefore if the defendant is released from the agreement i have not seen this in that exact the prosecution the defendant enters into the plea bargain with certain expectations his expectation in this case was a reasonable one that the that the prosecutor's arguments with preferred to meet the can consider relevant conduct i realise that the law is very clear in that regard but i would suggest that with this groom and as as written it was entirely reasonable for the defendant and his counsel to expect that the prosecutor was not going to get up before the court and say no less than seven times that that the alleged victim of the charge that was to bring to the attention of the court information that the court would not otherwise know otherwise have known but this is a situation where the prosecutor read suggest went over the over the top with though all of those things were true even if the prosecutor had only said that much judge you know that this very serious challenge has been has been dismissed and this is certainly explains why the white the agreement is for repeating myself it's the reasonable expectation that would have been that i'd suggest that any defendant any defense attorney would have felt blindsided by what happened here based on suggesting is as we look at the plea agreement that that the court consider what a reasonable defendant would have expected what reasonable counsel would have expected and i think that you can see that what counsel expected here was not the emphasis that was put on the charge that was dismissed and i'm going back to what the court has said to that that the defendant bargains for the statements of the of the prosecutor the defendant bargains for the what the court will see as the integrity and pristine of the prosecutor and bad under the under the terms of this agreement under the statement of facts that was given to the defendant when he entered into this plea agreement it was reasonable him for him not to expect that the prosecutor was saying to the judge it's emphasizing to the judge seven different times each of the child that the child was ill that the range thank you very much i think
and then cross examination
through two main points first off the administrative law judge decision not properly consider all impairments in combination and second that the credibility or pain of malice wasn't starting with impairments in combination argument this ends up being primarily about the interplay of the borderline intellectual functioning and the psychological impairments including moods ups mood ups and evidence in the record you did i'm a white favorable to the administrative decision supports that decision you need to address that question rather restating reclines claim combination and so for example the opinion of the subsequent psychological examiner who concluded that her intellectual functioning had actually came out intellectual functioning scores when she was in sixth grade were at the level of a third grader and they are lower now and she was confused about the full time of a quick thought she worked full time and so th repeatedly talking about full time work going to all these different elements but in fact ok yes the period coverage of the period time in which there was full time work as well as before that but that analysis should have broken out by period because it's it's into you not following the problem now is to use full time work against a later period where the symptoms and the objective  other limitation that west outlined in in her brief was that she did not have an ability to communicate but again your honour's no opinion found that she was unable to communicate and in fact west testified that when she became overwhelmed at work but the thing is if you are pregnant and requests to go of those opioids you can exercise your fundamental right certainly shortly at some point later you you know if you're still having the pain symptoms you you would need to request to go back on
the taleban with regard to the issue of country conditions there was quite an amount of the large amount of material that would submitted by both on that issue and both both and in those articles they discussed the current conditions in afghanistan at the time of the hearing on page two fifteen to eighteen nice question about about exhaustion at the it's well known they're deported to the government agency and the government agency has been made fully aware of the fact that they're being deported and why and then they are normally taken into the custody of that particular government  like you noted i have trouble understanding how you can give us a compelling enough to overcome what the i g decided things that he has a reasonable fear of persecution by the northern alliance what  e did in afghanistan was refused to fight for the taliban that is correct and i thought that in fact the primary thrust of your argument here was that if he goes back to the remnants of the taliban who still have some more maybe true that is to say even if it's true that there is some risk that remnants of the taliban now back in the general population as he described having shaved off their beards but they're still there might and so given the background materials that were put in and they do in fact support what mr with thing they deal with some sort department of state report on country conditions actually spread that the taliban was committing numerous human rights violations and making people disappear at the time that this case was heard and in fact at page two ninety two  conscription by the taliban or perhaps some sort of other punishment for being a traitor also documented in the background materials that the taliban had a habit of turning people that they were not happy with to the front lines hopefully to allow them to be eliminated i have two minutes  of the northern alliance some years ago in the context of an ongoing civil war are attributable to the present government which although it includes some people who are in the northern alliance also includes people of other factions and other ethnicities and is not engaged instance make a decision about change country conditions well that may be true but the board has already ruled on the country conditions and this is just and we just got through telling me a minute ago that it hasn't well the board well i didn't rule on the northern alliance issue it would be helpful for this court to have the conditions as they currently are in front of it when it was making its decision rather than go back to the board and have yet another delay of maybe a year or two while the board decides whether it's asylum conditions changed quite rapidly and at the time of our hearing it was presented that america was in control and that the northern alliance was these conditions have changed quite readily in that in that time and that was what we
anything but that popular notions of alaska are for the most part all wrong it is the least understood of any united states territory its size its extent and its great variety are by no means comprehended it is truly the land that nobody knows dog team sixteen hundred miles over the frozen you can't the rest are called now animals are husky as man's most faithful companion in conquering the long distances where a very scattered population does not yet encourage a more modern form of transportation here is my team on the winter trail where the noble sled dog takes pride in his work at home in his kennel he is equally ready and i just to be of service this is cat my my hero i called later he saved my life more than on from this exceptionally fine group of dogs by pick the ones that i still use in my alaskan adventure some of my eskimo friends are showing you where they live not in nice houses but in dugouts or even pretentious log pleasure meat they have painting heard of reindeer imported from siberia years ago by the united states government finding in their new home on the bering sea an abundance of food under the weather snow they have increased to the tens of thousands this was the first heard of reindeer i ever saw what impressed me the most was not the reindeer themselves but the sea of moving horns in this region nature stages are most dramatic spectacles and here is chaos let's go south right now to the second distinct section on the southeastern alaska very few realize how far south southeastern alaska really is a line drawn from the center of this section directly eastward will touch the british isles which are in exactly the same latitude it may surprise you to know that to know the capital city of alaska located here in this section is not a remote northern settlement but in reality lies on almost the same it may seem her to believe but nevertheless true that washington d c the capital of our country gets colder and wetter than does the capital of alaska along the inside passage are alaska's first city this is to know the capital city with about six thousand inhabitants and the chief source of employment is one of the world's greatest engineering projects the famous
hundred odd government primary schools of the country there's additional evidence of liberalism in the fact that boys and girls study together private schools still segregate the sect but they are so far in the minority that they count for little if the curse of the education received depends even more than usual upon the personality of the teacher this particular man at the place in sympathy to handle a job but not all rolled court here are a lot not even they try it with a shiny red prom brand grade with hopelessly inadequate for the great future he wanted for or it was so he began early to enlarge the secondary schools of more of the day and to spread them into the province he wanted a compulsory free education for all his country from kindergarten through university or linen women rich and poor urban and rural population like most coastal city one of the bay or develop swimmers by the hundreds but it provides unusually well for them this is a municipal swimming pool where frequent sports events tended by children and their pet campus in latin american university there are no dormitories or fraternity houses so the students gather here forgot the study and the political argument for which they are famous university of identification cards which they carry throughout their school year later they will exchange them for civil registration cards carried all airline lucy are young worldwide whose personal record of accomplishment is through questions about her work as director of a school for crippled children the first of its kind in latin  handicapped as well
ten when she didn't appear for her interview that some paid zero zero two for one and that application was terminated by immigration naturalized which is now part of department of homeland security a single case anywhere in the united states where you get a frivolous warning where somebody doesn't go forward on this trial she never went forward on any asylum case this was an adjustment application she was applying as a skilled worker there was a contradiction in her application with three arrests and she never assumed those facts cancel it you will argue as the argues in his brief that basically the signing of the application it's the frivolous warning no case and the warrant doesn't bother me too much what bothers me is that if a person actually knows from their application because it says on the application a warning about frivolousness then why isn't that sufficient that if they go ahead under those one issue when the issue was have three arrests she claimed fear of muslims in india she was a member of the social group she wasn't wasting the court's time there was that she never assume the fact that she was ever arrested that was in her every immigration judge gives a written notice to every application for asylum that's filed in open court you can ask any trial attorney who works in immigration court that is the law that is what happens we have to have something in the record we passed in conjunction to her discretionary form of relief which was an adjustment application there was no application of asylum pending before the judge at that time the government attorney  client her signature had she had to have been acknowledged is that your signature if you understand what you were signing do you understand the consequences of this application there is nowhere in the record and there is no b i case stating that there is an indication here that lack of noticed was not raised before the board that it's not true it was raised that she wasn't given any notice as an application as an issue before the board before the the appeal brief raises that that she wasn't sworn to our application of given any notice of frivolous warnings thank you
and so i would like to concentrate on that issue today as the court is aware during during cross examination of the chief government witness just in to cooperate with witness this on the rigs and mr we attempted to a list of three cross examination that they were looking at substantial minimum mandatory sends we were interrupted in our cross examination and the district court precluded us from eliciting that testimony specifically mr le mirror was looking at a sense of life without possibility of parole unless the government moved to reduce his sentence now in determining whether or not a court has placed improper limits on cross examination and the court looks at essentially two factors and that is whether excluding whether the evidence that was excluded was relevant and whether assuming that it was relevant whether or not there were other legitimate that that's what i was trying to point out to the jury and that was i think the most important  the defense counsel inquired of her whether or not it was in fact the government only which could make the most fun to reduce her sound and i think that is very important here because i after the court have made its comments after it is sustained you objections about the mandatory minimum and and looking at the schnberg case it appears that there are three criteria the dead should be fulfilled in the cross examination of  don't know that that's been terribly correct your honor i would no i would not carry things first of all i think that there are certain i mean they're made aware of the critical thing is that i motion can be made by the government and by the government alone and i look at the back damien case from the ninth circuit i'm good appeared in that case yeah and i think that it's actually driven sort of argument that's presented an adept at gaining on but it appears in that case that they don't necessarily have a your honor they have and i think what what was made clear in furtherance of this was there were trips to purchase these drugs and in the course of making these trips  me or i have been told that you know with respect to one purchase that these drugs were coming from larson that would really be more of a pastor scription but i think in this instance it really does show that there is an ongoing course of conduct here  these people are all involved in a conspiracy to distribute drugs and art and that let me urge just me lavater were saying where they were coming from and then judge situation that subject i'd also like to point out that  if there were there i think it is harmless because there were additional facts put into evidence in this case namely the testimony of rigs that she purchased drugs from our son the testimony  or may have had to say was the best cumulative on that point and as more questions for me all resumed my seat
absolutely if we were to even if we agree with you that summary judgment was the stretch here given that actual nature and underlying factual issues if we would to affirm the district court i'm just missile of a case based on these are only supported in the two thousand and twelve year and exploration and as a result under the fifty six eat the district court was within its discretion to grant summary judgment of the motion and supporting materials that the declaration should have been struck that are you saying that that eliminates the entire basis for your friend to argue that they were factual disputes with meaning at least with regard to the intent of the unethical conduct charges precisely who what when where and why the intent occurred you have to identify the person who had the intent when where they give their motives attorney this is somebody who is well he's clearly coached to make certain statements and say i don't know what times four years earlier said he knew something but is there firm summary judgment in you know the identical circumstances i'm not sure they said by the way the claims removal they said the products were again and were into this netherworld the who had the intent when they didn't even know what intent they had intend was that there was a lot of that statement from this work with regard to the reason for that and should be presumed in these sorts of cases that first of all the patent office has no means to investigate the claims or being sued and therefore rely on the document was not struck from the vat peroration was not struck from the record he did your own it's kind of irrelevant isn't it it was irrelevant to the judge there it's probably irrelevant to us too i think that's a point that i would be comfortable conceding medium well that's where you start asking mr jury about who love when where why of the specific and now we're talking about litigation misconduct since that and and even
opinion affirming mr pereira's convictions for first degree kidnapping and first degree murder attempted murder he washington state supreme court found that under washington law an accomplice must accomplice liability in our washington pattern jury instructions on that issue are wrong and reversed to death penalty cases this case came along after that so it's very if this were accused coming directly and that's one of the heaviest plates and there's two object it has to be a plane or analysis how does that fit in here i don't think it's either i don't think it's relevant here because the the accomplice five billion structures here because they didn't reflect that in for a dime in for dollars theory and it didn't go to just it didn't say an accomplice to he charges the couch charged it that is i think that the jury instruction demonstrates that they weren't convinced that he was there i mean the jury question reflects that they weren't convinced there because why would they ask about both counts if they t why would it have mattered at all that well they've simply asking do you have to be a principal or capping your can you be an accomplice for kidnapping as well as being accomplished for murder well that's what the i mean one  interpret the question asked by the jury and that's the assumption that the washington state supreme court made but i don't think that that's necessarily what the jury was asked well what were the washington supreme court and well but in this particular case in order to demonstrate that the error in the jury instruction here was harmless they didn't apply the law in place the burden on the state and they didn't find that the air had to be harmless beyond reasonable doubt it was a are we have to read the dissent to find out what the majority of men well i think the opposing counsel's position was that it wasn't entirely clear what standard that majority was applying well let me put a point not mentioned by the way by the court it doesn't mean that it was not that the court i assumed what they were saying was the substitution of it doesn't make any difference in this particular case because of the letter that came from the jury in the response and because the position of the evidence is so that is by the defense in the