MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
appeals because he says he's not attacking the question agreement he's not attacking the judge no foreclosure is not attacking the affirmation of sale he's just saying we had a deal to give something back to roy and that's not only saying i was
confidential informants people who are and privacy information investigation is close
there was no selection
show with all kinds of public domain goodness and on this show we're watching going to watch a film called measure of a man and it comes out of the bring a young  you know the interesting script and of course now bring them young university is mormon so naturally they would be totally against any kind of drinking no matter what you know i mean they've got it straight from god no drinking no coffee no tea no cigarettes no notes but the measure of a man what the what the story is about is i just said that previous part just to put it in context so you know where the film it's coming from and but it does have some good important things to say i think so ok so the film is it drinking and driving it's more the idea of drinking its self as being the thing you stand up against so yeah ok so this is it's a good film but it's all from a mormon perspective i think you're going to enjoy this one so picking up chicks in a car you're going to enjoy a veteran i had i'm david the doesn't seem possible that mike still big and so so growing it seems only yesterday he was right is trying to go out and now here he is in high school interested in sports and  if someone around here didn't put the brakes on the place would be a shambles but i love you mom i'm going down to the drive and for you there be back about ten those boy but i've heard stories about their reputation if you're going out with their mind you should be able to control the circumstance that's  quit worrying mom i'll be home early wonder how come mothers know so much mom seems to have a regular built in radar when it comes to finding things out but she's ok that he's going along to eagle city and have just one little teeny weeny beer start out ok let's g where in the world is that  know come on he's probably down at the library one o'clock word you get sick you're gone this time on night it's not where we're going off there it's where we've been we've just come from a church social oh oh ok then drive careful brute by our original process from the choicest cops rice and best barley malt stuff that goes with the kicker i guess what about me in a funny little street i was just thinking how many cans of beer do you suppose are being opened all over the world right now right this very minute
your position is that the complaint that was in fact dismissed on a mirror so to speak does contain enough allegations regarding being walled into this mistaken belief
country it's not a very pleasant place to live there and so we can't take everybody that wants to be here because there's no unfortunate circumstance for our country we have a subject in our line we have to have to have  process doesn't necessarily go to the heart of this claim wow because the judge didn't tie that again to the issue of identity she never claims or or  that off is valid knowing that it's not wouldn't that affect the trier effects assessment of that person's credibility i don't think that that's what happened here that i don't i didn't see it happen here i'm just in general wouldn't you agree that knowingly presenting a false doc judge not doing what you have to do to get out of a bad situation but coming to court and offering you know the docket you know to be false wouldn't judge be within her rights to say that affects my assessment of the person's credibility ye can draw in madras credibility finding based on an inconsistency a mere inconsistency it has to be in a consistency that's that's material this is something different this is not finding that you know you've testified one way one place you told the style the many cases from this court back to the agency of the issues that seems to me is that i don't quite understand she was saying that the objective here is not reasonable because he was never specifically targeted as an individual that is that there's nothing other than the reports saying that people with his particular bloodline are going automatically if you come within a bloodline on a magically by your argument they are to be a refugee especially if they can establish that there are there's a significant likelihood of that actually happening and they don't have to demonstrate they've been targeted individuals just merely being having some blood in their veins it is sufficient i believe so yes ok thank you thank you  persecution assuming that to be true i mean isn't that what we would have to have her do while you're gone if she didn't make the conclusion on the record the response quote responded provided no evidence of persecution because she doesn't believe it when he said there's no evidence she said is that right or wrong well i don't know how she's reading the record there are if she's reading that's the statement that page four fourteen where the mc the national report only what i think she's referring to maybe a yes or no answer would be her statement that there is no evidence in the record right or wrong i'm not sure i can answer a yes or no i am trying to answer it based on the record your honor if you're saying that that statement contradicts hers and yes she was wrong yeah i'm i'm not saying anything i'm getting trying to get
that when the probation conditions were coming from the bench they were literally in the middle of the sentencing the trial court was not hearing evidence there was not evidence being admitted there was no evidentiary objection to object to in the moment when these conditions little more challenge were coming  makes it more difficult for juveniles to appear in these sorts of issues in that respect it appears the supreme court was saying these are different cases these are different things we treat these differently for lots of reasons yes for the  the evidence was closely balance in this case both of these conditions deal with games or gaming activity or game membership or the games of the sort but there is no evidence at trial that this was a game related crime your only evidence the only because it touches upon something just as for the first amendment the first rights of free speech challenge that is of course a very pinnacle pinnacle rights that everybody enjoys and anything that directly gone overly small it leaves i believe you're afraid to tell the context your honor this specific issue has been addressed by the second district and people versus jason he communication and to get in communication with content is more than just incidental it is is the interaction with the present it is interacting with intelligence must reach out to the board and say i realize that you've heard my constitutional rights but what you really need in fact that highlights again the vagueness and the fact that these conditions are there we don't really know what they not has a right to associate with family members he has a right to associate with coworkers he has a right to associate with screw or class members and as i knew in my brief the trial can play one of the conditions that the trial goes to specifically was that more tr
the federal public defender forty to forty one time i don't earlier this week where there are ways that a determination for example one where there was no the difference between  believe it's more demanding
effect of the evidence to exercise that discretion the court must have viewed the evidence it must be the evidence that is sought to be excluded in the present case the court believed to exercise discretion not being the evidence but several circuits have reached this issue and and decided that it is an impedance of discretion or exercise discretion in not giving the evidence they had hel child pornography on that computer because it's too extreme or issue and this was absolutely and explicit waiver as george would cox written first of all a motion in limine to doncaster of the court to review the evidence and trial brief that preceded the trial obviously did not mention it as well judge one concert written order did not call five his group but quest his invitation to use a child pornography evidence on where there was representative he said if it get it seems to be that if the jury sees any child pornography graphic as it may be in many cases this is very graphic evidence this is this was about it and many of the cases also describe that yes case was she had an opportunity to see that and also videos as anyone who has used a computer the internet do is to down a video in mining process defense just takes more time and maybe somebody could remo surreptitiously drop a few images on your laptop or your desktop but the idea that somebody has it's much better circumstantial evidence of knowledge when there are hundreds of videos that if downloaded from the internet circumstantial evidence person who downloaded them would know what they're doing it is also take up more space on the hard drive and as moni the forensic examiner testified one of the reasons people move material from the same laptop
we got to clean up this mess re you oh oh oh oh oh
professors in law school he was flying back to a case where the losing party in the case had a hundred years of practice on their side throughout the year that i had him in my first year law school whenever there was there was a case for someone to present who three hundred years of a little while but you know it takes a few months i believe it is and eventually the district court dismisses dismisses it without prejudice i agree and  you're suggesting now is that the district court judge should have treated his requ best calculations with his statutory tolling the statute was told until about september fourteenth one thousand nine hundred seven i there are several different ways to count it and i agree that that's a favorable way to count it although favorable in what cont to ask for these he gets on this off on this quest to obtain transcripts which goes on i but presence own it sometime in ninety nine when he's still trying to get his transcripts  finally files in december of ninety nine thousand a second has petitioned the california supreme court right and i think that there are really only two ways for the district court to be able to hear this two thousand to a new a new prison and the man who had been helping him was no longer available so he did and it took some number of years till he could find a new inmate to help him but of course there is no law that would support that is a basis for an
than you offer where the state they were evidently talking to her about this murder and they tell her you're caught up in a murder investigation and she goes there's no way
but given the usual posture of this case they think that's where i mean will vote for him when they're in the breeze on because he the argument is had seen in the record that the disposition of this case was had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of that and that's where i thought we were
but she did have you didn't know anybody else she did she was the one person she she had all four affidavits and she wasn't able to produce those those people because you didn't have counsel until very very end of her case was the last then he never says i now find her incredible with regard to her testimony that aspect of her testimony that relates to her night of service now your honor he he didn't he was required to make a credibility determinations parties he's not required to come considerable amount of time to get that information so the immigration judge told her look i need more documentation problem that period and respondent had ten months to present that and did not did not bring anything if she still oration of her heart she well the immigration judge the factors that she can consider would be and usually and what they've done with this is if you can respond it several times would give you a list of things that you need typically you know bills to show that you've paid rent you pay your gas electric you know or you can bring in a witness to say that you know machines next door to me all the time she did bring in one witness to testify to that effect and the witness clearly did not they have the witness testified that there has to be more or maybe what you nap was yes she's trying to tell the truth but she doesn't really know what the truth is when he made the original credibility
requires the defendant to not have to be deprived of alcohol to be deprived of foreign substances and to have not found and it's our position that the camera angle shows him to none of those things i don't think the camera need to be set up in he in fact himself testified that he did nothing but i think in this particular case it certainly is an admission of significance interest by the offended that i think would be sufficient to cure that i guess that failure to comply with  context of substantial compliance of the cases have been looked at circumstances where the officers or their individual behind them they're not exactly facing and they said substantial compliance an observation in that instance  using their other faculties to quote court observe an individual that hearing specifically other cases have looked at an officer using their her whole vision to observe a subject  here we have substantial compliance or do we have excusing that i would argue that in a minimum you have substantial but i think you can also argue that you could excuse compliance because the video audio essentially limitation in terms of substantial compliance in cases dealing specifically with the officer having their back to the subject at least one of the cases yasser actually had his back to the subject for approximately six minutes and the court was careful there not  sack some kind of you know harlem's or was in the room that's right it's the umbrella here where we would be saying it's ok to leave the room completely you can't hear or hear not the same room with  rhetorician is really about the preservation of what occurs during that twenty minute period and in this particular case the whole twenty minute observation was preserved to allow the defendant to challenge the breathalyzer results so i don't think in this he's it would be necessary for the officer to come in view the video see if anything occurs would be a prudent thing it would be the best thing for the officer to do to ensure that nothing has happened to compromise the task yes i agree that it probably would because if there is something that compromises it th rely on a device separate and apart from police officers observations audio presence what what should be the requirements of the device or in the video audio that is produced court to determine with respect to the quality is its missions i think that it should have had a bare minimum video recording video an audio recording would be consistent with
is the current incarceration a result solely of the alleged subsequent offense under parole or is the current incarceration somehow part and parcel of burnett had reoffended in the community they basically decided he could not be handled in the community that was the basis on which they were revoked his current parole they contended that he had driven around  what you did before we're not going to treat you which of course kind of thanks the question of why is he is in treatment if not because he tends to engage in this behavior and he needs to talk about it and he needs someplace to get treatment but they never specifically stated you have re how that impacts the appropriate time to release the can be provided to mr burnett when the district court makes its germination that he was in fact legally incarcerated is certainly something that we believe is appropriate to consider when the court decides he is relieved should be granted you're entitled to some relief because your constitutional rights were in fact violated and what should that really be eight months well we believe that's quite clear and while we believe the judge felt in subsequent ruling that he had to be released affirmed the fact that the forehead unconstitutionally deny him release before the state has never agreed with that situation evaluation a different court findings so it's not a continuation it was a separate order the point to is really between three and four months after his release he was talking victims in the same manner that to do with this particular issue here federal courts retaining authority to shorten terminate modify even just charge the period of supervised release so there actually was a grammy there was actually and an injury that mr king was that he could demonstrate that
that different countries have different notions of what is political for example having two or three kids in america is not political has nothing to do with politics and have as many of the few kids as you watched in china und
he was twenty one and then there isn't any truth to he dropped the gun back into someone else's car which would be some evidence of consciousness or awareness that he and his lawyer would have tried to do things quite differently for instance i think there could have been a basis to suppress that statement it's kind of unclear from the record if it was premature and there was mind on it's also kind of a here from the  an earlier i mean that was just a bad start for him no matter what wasn't so he had plenty of incentives to move to suppress oh is that statement even the way the case unfold i don't disagree your honor but he did not move to suppress it i would think now with that being the knowledge element being a part of the offense that he definitely would have moved to suppress i can't speculate on what happened a t difficult issue you are right and turner turner versus coleman also is the president in this case in the circuit at this point in time so counts but counsel conceded in the district court the medley case from the th circuit brings it into kind of a different light as well but that would be a circus but they seem to be on opposite sides of the issue once a day and night means defective structural  and whether or not in particular he is shown an impact on his substantial right on his record it is very straightforward that he is not able to meet that in his trial transcript we have two officers who both testified that at the time of you the rest he made an admission that he was a convicted felon so it's clear based on th prosecutor then clarified when you say the information he had given you mean the fact that he was a convicted felon in the office the answer is yes yes sir and that was the st officer who testified officer joseph th in it precludes him from showing what he needs to show here which is an impact on his substantial write jones also has an extensive criminal history one that is so serious that qualifies him as an armchair criminal he had a two defendant did not just merely be able to object he went further at the sentencing and really fleshed it out and said i've searched and searched and searched to see if i had a valid argument aggregate error was that it scoured the trial record and could not find any evidence and didn't happen with that knowledge of status that he had been a convicted felon and that's very different than what we have establish that there's a reason to believe it would have come out differently and it seems to me based on this whole record there's really nothing to support your honor his consciousness of guilt of the crime to begin with and there's every incentive if there was a basis for keeping that out and i don't know what it would possibly be there's nothing in that record that stood to me suggests that there is something that would have supported a suppression motion there's every incentive if there was such a thing to move to suppress it why would i why would i get engaged in that speculation when when the concludes our week of oral argument we are a
administrative proceedings for example by saying i'm surprised and i'd like to you know tell tomorrow to find some or vital evidence or something and to rely upon that which is clearly late and i think it's waived for purposes of today's argument the  owner online don't have the oxygen requirements for every don't have the occupational end but they don't have the department of labor data on their phones on their tablets or anywhere near they have no idea whether or not the patient expert has given testimony that  even setting aside the question of whether part time work and the substantial gainful employment area wasn't clear to me that it undermines the proposition that it would be possible to find those as a full time job so i jobs as the bright line ten percent of even two hundred thousand jobs as good here is a bright line and so because we don't know the vocational expert in included part time and full time because we don't know the answer that question and because the commissioner bears the burden of production on that issue then the commission has not seen his burden of proof we need to look at the record and ask days a week or an equivalent schedule and once we get to a little less than forty hours a week it becomes incumbent upon the we just end up speculating that that that might qualify but that one is that it appears that a large number of these jobs are not full time and therefore may not meet the requirements of the regulation at all but even if