MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
right but the court was concerned there for sure with the for guidelines chart illusion but i have the impression that he thought it was important and your binding agreement argument if in fact the judge accepted the recommendation of thirty five years on a understanding your client was super awaiting a murder charge thank you thank you neither party has objected to it and the defense counsel has no reason to object to it in light at the agreement that exactly is one of the factors that that state strongly suggests that court said something to the it that this is it in page one hundred and twenty three dollars of the joint appendix although i'm going to do the sentencing guidelines calculation i'm disposed to depart on the basis of the joint motion in other the reasoning that the sentencing guidelines calculation was entirely separate from the basis of departure which was on the joint motion but even if the career career offender provision was not front and center here in the negotiations there is the provision that allows for an appeal based on a change in the law so if there had been a change in the law with respect to career offender the defendants appeal is in some way invalidated by any agreement in the plea agreement and then what do you think would happen in that event since the guideline calculation would no longer be correct wouldn't there have had to there there there might have been three sentences because then the guidelines would have been incorrectly town elated but the result would have been essential at the same because the sentence itself that the parties agreed to and i presume the agreement would still be
of the clerk the deputy card has pointed out that these recording these proceedings are recorded and their disseminated over the website and still are not quite sure how to handle this we think that the p not a criminal she has not there's no allegations of fraud in her case she's married to a united states citizen and she has a pending immigrant visa petition which was filed by her husband we have asked the district council however the court did not retroactively apply that standard to the petitioner in that it did allow her an opportunity to comply with the court's decision by the mat in the case back to the board with instructions to  in addition the government in this case did not follow its own policy memorandum which was that he wanted to encourage filings or at least discourage filings from people who would have eventually benefited from status and she got married her husband filed a visa petition for her and her priority date wasn't current so she had to wait probably a number of years for her priority to be current but the and she would have to adjust her status under section two  not avoiding the courts are not trying to and she wanted to attend her hearing so there is no concern here that this was a dilatory tactics by not appearing at her her motion to reconsider that it had been broken her mailbox had been broken for some time to her word for some time and somehow she i mean she was getting mail that she got his day in essential order  opinion of this panel overruling a prior panel opinion which we can't do that thank you the likely result of the hearing had she gone to the ruling would have been either that she would have been granted voluntary departure which is an important rights seeking i reported form of
seventeen my client was served in october of two thousand and seventeen after that service there was an adjudication on the heart over eighteen of the two thousand and seventeen indicated after she did that service plan she sent that suit him and august two thousand and seventeen so the st time i can't find any services for him to complete or that he is provided with was august of two thousand and seventeen things that he is now able if you are or have the opportunity to provide support to the minor child family is working but the follow up with that because is released there is i he still should have been afforded the opportunity to complete services th because she had gone through some pretty extensive surgery was in a rehab facility and things like this i believe is that's in the record but my reading of it is that the young different grounds against the respondent in this case those included failure to maintain a reasonable degree of interest consumer responsibility failed to make reasonable efforts toward the return of the min field to make reasonable progress toward the return of the minor deserving the minor three months preceding the commencement of the proceedings and he is incarcerated as a result of a criminal conviction and prior to that he had little  or no contact with the child and his incarceration will prevent him from discharging his parental responsibilities in excess of two years and finally the last one was abandoned in the mind and out that the not allow a shock to travel to kansas to meet with the respondent and to make sure he had all the services they need that he needed it's very clear he was sent in to provide financial support and it was not only a failure to provide financial support he did maintain contact the way he could through cards and letters but there was a lot more that needed to be done concerning substance abuse  there was no information that he and started were completed any of those things and even if this court does not agree with the trial court's determination concerning every one of those four ounce only one gram to be alleged best interest factors that came up in the court did hear evidence concerning those factors be age at the time the school teen years old diagnosed with cerebral palsy she did interview a major surgery for both of her tube videos but above all she wants to feel there was some discussion by opposing counsel about pressure from family knew and it looks like a different family was to try to step up but none of those places would seem to be one that worked out very well for b age she has remarkable insight she indicated that she believes her appearance do not take care of their children and it's a very tough thing for a child to have to admit to in she indicated their tradition of her father's approval rights to scrabble for the best and again those are not the easy things for a child to say that this clearly is a child who wants to move on with their life that are future ahead of her and she does have a special it is highly specialized physical needs to continue the
separate from assault and battery the reason that at hand doesn't work as a crime violence or a bomb felony is because of the circumstances of activation which included some things  aggravation which is a separate unique element not found in any other which is required by am correct which is the second thing is obviously ab han is assault and battery not assault but context matters in that not only is it a saltpeter wound but it's also in the context of resisting arrest and that's where if you look at the attorney general's opinion which is really only legal authority it really doesn't form so this was an inquiry these come into the tourney general's office this was an inquiry from a sheriff's department i believe they want to know exactly how they're supposed to charge it and they get published and and people refer to them and so it is an indication of how any other questions they can help you with we probably need it going on it i'd love for you to send it to the south carolina supreme court they haven't really spoken on what they really need under this statute but i know that you are very hesitant to do that he refers to out of the dinkins case the main difference between that and this is that the intent to kill which was used to hold that that was violent is an element and this case is more akin to the adhan in hemingway because we're talking about means and if you adopted the government's logic that this assault has to be an assault to beat or wound which you've suggested you might consider violent why wouldn't the opposite be true that some of these nonviolent means in a hand what would they make you know the the threat of using a weapon any less violent there's no authority for that nothing was cited for that and i wanted to point out that judge wins question about what the attorney general's opinion has s they actually said that kicking it wasn't an attempt to kick their specific example for a violation of three twenty b was that if an officer was actually kicked which would be a battery because it's contact if i
overcome the rule that we must take mr bailey's affidavit supporting the claim as being true in other words if we do take mr bailey's quick affidavit as being true the claim should move on to the third stage and i have to stress again this isn't a permanent duty on post conviction counsel and there's been some controversy on that recently and there's the argument has been that the supreme court in the greer case in the cases of were whatever they might be and we can't know at this point what they would be but because they haven't read that means that that attorney provided on reasonable assistance and the claim should be remanded and proceedings thank you that but that is that is true your honor however there are procedures in place to deal with that situation those procedures do not include by leaving the right which belongs only to the defendant natter the fact is yes this claim did go to a third stage here in credibility determinations remain and the and the the claim was denied on the basis of those determinations however particularly with these standards it's inappropriate to speculate about what the proceedings would have looked like had counsel for fill those duties and so really this is going to go back i don't think that there's anything that would prevent the post conviction judge from reevaluating those those
case i don't think the other thing is i don't believe that there was any evidence suggesting there was any prejudice to the government and it was done before the sentencing and we filed a motion about three weeks prior to the sentencing so it seems to me that at a minimum there should have been some investigation as to whether or not this would get to the to the jury basically in terms of the facts concerning the the allegations we have  with respect to whether or not this represented a fair and just basis i don't think that was ever explore i mean he may come to the same results if he had of done that but one of the different aspects of this case and others is it seems to me that the question of a trap pretty adequately explored at the time the plea was to well look at the factual basis and he got into this i was trapped in a trap and what does that mean and then there was extensive questioning and then we got the lawyer  again exactly when entrapment was being discussed in the lawyer said he's taking a look at this they have their audiotapes and videotapes and audiotapes and he's satisfied that the factual basis is there and this plea is appropriate so it which he was and then at the time that probation does its investigation of course he represents essentially the same thing i sat in on the hearing on the meeting and lo and behold we have it coming back that he doesn't accept responsibility and of course at that point the motion was filed and the safety valve issue in terms of his complying  right but i think i guess what i'm pointing out here is they know from this acceptance of the point that you think that i was set up yeah i did it was stupid i was set up and that's essentially what he's telling to provide the information now that you know we filed the motion i suppose i could have proceeded with that but i don't really think i could have proceeded with and having  i don't know that it would have been a fruitful but i think that's yet we haven't really had that opportunity to address the safety valve to the fact that you know except in
parent and it certainly doesn't mean a child best interests are served by taking away your ability to make decisions regarding that house just what happened with the point custody the joint custody order that gave them basically  were e mailing back and forth about the visitation arrangement for the holiday that you were objecting saying they were trying to settle visitation for that holiday we did not hear y that one of the issues in the case was custody and one of the issues in determining s t is each party's willingness to cooperate and so forth and so on and so wouldn't these e mail discussions about trying to resolve visitation on a holiday and so forth are like that go directly to whether the produce one can cooperate or joint custody to which side is willing to work with the other when those kind of was she the worst moms their case at trial and their case here was she was a new mom she was a little detail oriented involved in our faces trial was that she was a parent was unwilling to co parent and encourage any relationship with  the time of trial they had never had visitation with the file on christmas or thanksgiving christmas day or that period she refused to allow him to station until he provided for the brand of the car se doing now he asked for a week she said no i can't do it he asked for the next week after that no i can't do it you know if this was not it was a plan it was relentless pattern of interfering with his opportunity you have a
argue that exactly the way i'm about to say but why doesn't touch and surely help them in touch and said in a scenario like this it's actually see that you ought to be focusing on not  information and the second finding that is brant and also necessary is that there was a lack of cooperation in the language of the statute congress may show that the party failed to cooperate to the best of its ability to comply maintain records of information that would move very question on the off chance that this may be necessary sometime in the future which could be years later after the ministers from leaving and not making that argument first time in court accepted methodology there was no question that the parties were not these were not transactions between affiliated so for the first time in this case at the very last moment commerce changed  said something in response to my question about the sale and was there any of legation to me in documents and i thought that you had said that that part of that was part of the contract that you let them know that there  and that they ought to preserve documents part of that right because i'm looking at the contract and i don't see that anywhere in the contract the only thing i can find is that you all have the right during normal business hours to come back and look for documents but i can see i mean to give just saying you can do whatever you want to document but if i happen to come back during normal business hours just let me look for them a far cry removed from informing them that they want to be preserved not at the company see i wanted to say because we're both awesome you are extremely well prepared and fabulous helps me understand very complicated and thank you for doing such a great job
along the south eastern seaboard on the slopes of these blue ridge mountains american history was made on these fertile plains men fought and died to make freedom ring throughout the land heritage today way down south in the land of caught in song and story in the strong light of living reality for years that brought back through bygone generations the world has looked at the southland or a picture of life the kewl new that region a cow unhurried way up good living the charm of southern city the peace and quiet of the southern countryside health giving qualities of the soil and sun to the tables of the nation and the world marcus peaches i'm curious a watermelon sent to every corner of this land about vegetables in great abundance and amazing variety on the lifestyle of the southeast or the markets and tables of the nation assuming greater and greater prominence in the economy of this region their bag measured in millions of dollars is where the ride bred agricultural activities of the southland is the rapid industrial growth of the region not only in basic heavy industry but also in other fields that have become a vital factor in the pattern of modern industrial development remarkable strides development of its what industry and today this region plays a leading role in the production of paper building boards insulating material crafting and other products derived from our airline railroad line is one of the nation's leading railway system with main lines through virginia the carolinas florida georgia and alabama serving the important in the modern scheme of business planting of new and diversified and within the easy reach of the rail line serving
yes i think that there are general notification requirements i know that the knights are going to have to consider the other course of have looked at occupational restrictions notification requirements but i thought the general notification requirement i think that would be an arguable issue but it was not before the court we don't know the details of what the the false identification documents the person used to get work i think it's pretty clear i don't have a great point it's one criminal history and the request of instructions no consideration whether the restrictions were the least onerous possible which is required by five f one point one that the court gave absolutely no consideration to five f one point five legitimate business in fact it's still going on he now has five employees the business is doing well he engaged identical employment while on the trail supervision prior to sentencing the regional sentencing court imposed these conditions or anything similar  he's been doing this for a year and a half since was released and after a year and a half prior to the sentencing with no problems whatsoever and again i mean credit repair sort of has a bad feeling to it but it's it's a legitimate it's not someone who says give us five hundred dollars and we'll fix your credit what they did was they may go over a credit report and they address the issues and do what they can to mitigate it does if that's what i'm trying to point out that there's no allegation this is an inappropriate condition thirteen to the same point as picture in the phrase for the guy in line with requires you know certain findings to be made factors to be found before i can reply and i think it's i know it's in fact personal financial information to be given by the client to the person who's going to do the credit repair and he's going to tell these clients well you know i think there might be a risk here because i understand that what i'm saying that the probation officer memorandum makes no attempt to justify that condition under the guidelines that is correct or i know that she she did not specifically state that because in five point five requires three determinations i don't believe the court made any of them here i believe that was an abuse of discretion and i believe the conditions are inappropriate for the u s the occupational restrictions are inappropriate for that reason
from the judge's other crimes ruling in this case rests on a misunderstanding of the law the evidence that the judge insisted the jury had a right to hear was in fact exactly the kind of evidence that juries are not allowed to hear jurors are not allowed to hear that for example the police already had a mug shot from a prior drug case and so they used that they're not allowed to the jury is not allowed to hear that are you saying that evidence effect drug case was introduced you does the trial judge exercise his discretion if if it appears the state is contending that there was an absolute agreement between the parties and if we find that there was no agreement then doesn't it actually is going to be trying to case is working on the case of absolutely not this is deeply prejudicial this is the state as your honor said trying to upgrade their ad and trying to bolster two week faces and one especially the case with evidence of another case makes him look like a bad guy it was a propensity for
resolution of that issue you did not oppose that as far as i can tell from liability or from having to pay anybody any money it's immunity from being sued in the first place i realize there's a different approach to discovery in this context and here the court simply said well we're not going to get into discovery until we take a look at qualified immunity and i didn't see where you opposed that and if you look at this if you look at least education and what he gave supporters qualifications it never says anything about he has any legal information or knowledge about us documents or about ok there's been no bar question about trust in twenty years when what i want leads you to believe that i can own a corporation or i can own a fifty percent share of a corporation but the fact that the corporation is a limited liability energy doesn't mean i don't own it well i mean that's that may be true what i'm saying which were not you know not true this person made your case pretty clearly let's hear from the other side we'll give you an opportunity to respond thank you thank response to mr harrison's comments and i'm of course here to answer the horse questions let me say this as far as the state of discovery is concerned it's well settled limited discovery but sometimes you need discovery before you can decide the qualified immunity motion there may be such times george fletcher this is not the time that's yet that i think is your better  and let me respond to mr harrison comments about the alleged false statements in the affidavit this issue was not alleged in warrant our failure to present the affidavit to individuals on the premises regular to present the warrant individuals on the premises there are a string of allegations in the a case where there are no constitutional violations in the issues where where there may be a constitutional issue involved the agent and title to qualified immunity because the law is not clearly established in the complaint it says plaintiff crammed previously filed a motion for return of property under forty one e the government returned the property without any opposition whatsoever to the motion  where the underlying criminal grand jury investigation is i can't tell you what happened i know that the agents returned the property i think what happened is that some of the subject called the