MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
by making a decision that was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the u s supreme court and reasonably found facts in its determination but if nobody's going to believe it because there's so much other testimony that pedro was there that impairs the credibility of the defense that's being put forward by suggesting that page was obviously been put up to say this your honor in reading you know as a lawyer you during his testimony that that evening when he came home he was suffering the effects of alcohol that he had drunk during that evening and also admits that he is an alcoholic when we compare this might be a tactical decision by an attorney not to put on a witness is not subject to such a focus relating to the conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of sentences so and dissecting the dynamics of both the witnesses and the net it conflict of interest by mr manning and i don't think there's any doubt that there was a conflict of interest the state court of appeal in its opinion it indicates that mr manning is testimony and ignition during the motion for a new trial tapia pedrosa thea and also meeting and what we described as an ante room meeting where other people were present but most exacting consider the interests of petitioner in isolation from those of peytral disturbing but nevertheless deny the tissues claim because there was no adverse effect essentially at that point i think that's the court's relying a firm grasp fibers that actual what you have to demonstrate must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance now the next step and terms of prejudice it's apparently the law that if you can demonstrate the actual conflict of interest and the adverse effect you don't have to carry the extra step that you do like in the bac have to demonstrate that the conflicting interest costs something to happen that add to the presentation of your client's case that's true your honor you have to show most likely you could have  found that there was no conflict of interest however the supreme court indicated that because one of the attorney's decisions rested on the reluctance to damage another defendant lot i think that argument cannot be considered without taking into light the entire trial that was presented at the state court first of all pedal copiers defense was alibi and that he wasn't there recommendation of hegel was that i don't testify and that was because i feel like they were you could hurt everybody the the by the time the trial starts i would submit that that a competent trial defense counsel already know that that defense is going to be the shooting in this case that mr sloan had already prepped his case to that point and was going to present it was prepared to present that the other thing that we need to look at in the entirety of this case is that mr manning
over the text and the serious throughout their brief that is written over the text is written over the text bad if you took a look at the record on page fifty three of the record it's pretty clear that it's not written over the text i p in opposition to that i believe the modification the last modification was in two thousand and two men three years before we had a note in this case showing a conflict with the endorsement modification i think this will really only grow towards the last modification and i would think that that modification there for it would be really because that party would have not first two modifications were very early on i believe about two thousand and six a it's the last modification that's of issue because i asked a modification in two thousand and two and after made too much money because they calculated in their overtime income and wish to have guidelines make it clear that you cannot include it as a time income because it's just that is here today is gone tomorrow you have to deal with the actual income that you're pretty confident which isn't reasonable which is the reason why he was created to pretty much for a living and to make it more reasonable for people to be able to actually make a payment based on income with a capital of thirty percent is what the there was another request for a modification under help this time a modification did come back to her i understand but once again it did not come from her with him it was very similar to the prior modification once again at fifty percent of he you're right it would be awesome there's a six nineteen center for the lack of standing argument allegation and there was no evidence it did a lot of general conclusion saying that her income was more than that that the plane was more than fifty percent of rank um but nowhere does she ever provide the application that her incom and simply put a motion for summary judgment is found the burden shifts to the nan movement to provide evidence of their case and in this case that simply did not happen after the defendant had was general conclusions without any supporting evidence or any real supporting facts provide and agreed with you know when she contacted the plaintiffs what occurred in those conversations would occur with operation push what her income was and watch what she was told so it's untrue that she's just made some general vague allegations she actually does   and all of that is provided for
according to that form the applicant is told if you fear or have a concern about being removed from the united states or arrive in sand home you should tell me so during this interview because you may not have another chance you will have the opportunity to speak privately in confidentially to another officer about your fear a concern that officer will determine if he should remain in the united states and not be removed because of that fear and the answer is yes to the fear question why shouldn't he it's first question that goes to the reason why he came to the united states in the first response out of his mouth is that he came basically for economic reasons and i think that i mean that is significant because  can the interview was conducted in mandarin and he said that he didn't dare tell someone about his fear of the communists or about the communist is even more vague than that then he said he did not know that the united states had freedom and he could speak freely fear of returning to his or her home country then there is another credible fear interview that that takes place and if the person at that interview needs to fairly low threshold explain
it seems you're arguing here on appeal that the abuse that your client suffered at the hands of her  d qualifies because the nuclear family is a relevant unit but below it was unclear to me whether that was your argument or whether you were saying that the relevant unit was her husband's family was being severely abused and followed pursued because her husband  buter as his property his woman all things related to his rather the allegations are true disgusting views of the nuclear family not because of how he viewed her in terms of his mean is wife your client and their children by his family that broadens it to include his parents his siblings and so forth and so when i say nuclear family i'm talking about the husband the wife and their children is including your client as the wife is that the re matter what i had to be with him and then he emphasized that to my face that no matter where i went he'd be able to find cetera so that seems to be a again so excuse me assuming that the notion of the nuclear family as  social group was preserved well lo assuming that for the sake of argument you seem to be taking the position if i read your brief correctly that that's not a cognizable social group within the definition of the group so if the claim is that she was persecuted because of her better ship an abusive nuclear family do you agree that if she were able to show that adequately she is established persecution  what it is have your position yes or does to my question i don't think that is a question asking you to ramble on about other matters i understood but  notion that it wasn't raised and if this court concludes that however in acts in expertly he raised below the question of persecution by the nuclear family then if the agents if the agency as your position i understand is that he did not preserve nuclear family if you're right right but if you're wrong if this court says yes he did maybe not as well as would be ideal but yes he did if we were determined that he did then do we not and a minimum have to remain   the male member believes that he has a right to inflict punishment and abuse on his wife that he could not would sexually abuse me and on top of that he saying i was this woman and that no matter what i had to be with him and then he emphasized that to my face that no matter where i went he be able to
when he failed to consider it in any meaningful way whether or not it's cherry by the presumption there's this court recently in india found that they re the question is whether the declaration that she provided to the immigration judge is substantial evidence of non delivery now
n the supreme court is a great western versus new kitchen in target in that case recently the ninth circuit in honolulu joined apprenticeship versus foster very clearly described the differential between equitable restitution and legal restitution i want to start with legal restitution because it points out the fact that we don't even have fully legal damages were not permitted that it was ordering equitable relief an order quote restitution equal to the difference between the value of the assets on the first day of  property goes up in value order the money in the play and at the end coming from read it was money it wasn't trucks or or scales or anything else it was money was there was turned over the money that was person standing in front of the court and say when did this committee's obligation to this person start this person standing in front of the court and have the start no earlier than her dad if we are talking about what the committee was supposed to do didn't know what the plan didn't know what the assets were and the court picked the day which was twenty days after she got after her interest gets transferred to somebody as a place to say this is where court improperly calculated damages if we want to try to reach characterize this as a calculation really two classes of assets that were involved here one was a fine call diversified investment portfolio there was simply no evidence before the district court of any issue whatsoever that could be argued to suggest that there was anything unconstitutional section eleven o nine and they concentrate on we don't make a profit therefore we can never be ordered restored but as the court pointed out the first  demonstrate with the actual acquisition prices i would have a problem with that i mean the courts don't always have to measure damages with absolute precision here it was simply no effort to determine damages at all nor did the district court say that he was sold was worth less than when it was acquired and what a reasonable rate of return would have been in the interim i don't think that it's accurate to say that we don't deny that we don't deny that the plan was damaged in fact
honor i would i would like that the proceedings be ordered terminated because he was not he was charged as an aggravated felony based on a conviction for eleven three fifty two a proceedings there's an extremely important issue which is the issue and i want to point out that although the government has alleged that the supreme court ma the federal statutory scheme and that scheme doesn't have a category for transportation but since the transportation does not involve any just it's like somebody well he was acquitted of possession for purposes of sale as i recall and why it's not like somebody who has his personal staff of marijuana and has it in his pocket when reasoning of rivera sanchez and i'm having trouble fitting it into your argument the reasoning of rivera sanchez is you look at the statute if it lists some generic omits others it covers only the generic offenses expressly listed so we do that with the federal statute and then we look at the state statute and we see whether what the person was convicted of well within the federal statute and here transportation we know was not covered by the federal statute and that's what he was convicted of it seems  solicitation at least has some connection with the possible sale and transportation need not
denial of a motion to reconsider which the petitioner filed before the board of immigration appeals concerning a determination by the integration judge that she was  record even if we were to find an error by the immigration judge such error would not be prejudicial but there could be no greater prejudice than to have a petition or supplication be pre term me there without replication based on an incorrect section of the law in fact a non existant the word pre term terminated was used by the immigration attorney  character because she falsely claimed not testifying clearly that she was american since that's correct the petitioner relied on the fact that the petitioner claimed she was a united states citizens when attempting to enter the united states however it is clear that if the judge goes beyond this section one hundred one f of the immigration and nationality act he then must not stop the analysis is there and going to a discretionary determination weighing both positive and i first factors a false claim to u s citizenship would be one of the adverse factors that the judge would be required to look at and you have to say i am exercising my stated in section one of one at therefore she statutorily barred from the relief so your argument is that he used the per se category find out factors that does not fit within the per se category however in that case he must show that he has weighed the positive and the adverse factors there has been some balancing of the factors before he concludes that she lacks good moral character here and there's no evidence and citizens of mexico who got false u s birth certificate and apply for u s passports and attempted to enter the united states using those fraudulent documents and the categories under section one no one else would support without any consideration of other relevant counterbalancing factors a conclusion of the lack of good moral character not although that was a suspension of deportation exist that would support her well founded fear of persecution those thoughts occurred afterwards after the conclusion of the ewing and saw all the more reason that in the solemn application should have been attached if one if the first  itself should not be fatal to her claim especially when the credible evidence on record suggests that petitioner and her two united states citizen and others would be subject to physical harm and appealed and the only thing in terms of their response and points to the language in the judge's decision specifically mentioning that seem as catch all provision while the judge in the decision and stops he's quote of that section saying in the case of an alien who makes a false statement are or claim of citizenship and stops short there but if one were to read the rest of that sentence it actually talks about
proof under the torture convention and and the v a there to be i you know her i'd i'm having a hard time getting past the fact that what we have here is not torture and therefore he didn't meet his birth i think that probably the action the board is only entitled to make a legal conclusion not a factual determination so therefore the court is reviewing both the board decision and the immigration judge decision because it's really the immigration judge decision which is the final word on factual findings and the the a number of the issues here and that's something i want to address in a moment our factual certainly the question of whether petitioner whether the evidence that he presented showed a likelihood of what's torture oh you mean if it rose to the level of torture i understood just common to be thinking that there was a finding that it's do not rise to the level of torture and i don't see the i g as having made any determination on that nitish the way i read the decision is that the immigration judge first of all talked about burden of proof which has to do with whether something rises whether something whether there is a likelihood whether it will be more likely than not that the excuse me the petitioner well we will be subjected to torture if you returns and the immigration judge also then after that well really in conjunction with that because under that regulation the factual findings of immigration judges are the ones that are reviewed the because the board doesn't have any of sortie to make or comment on those factual  know why you know is that not a plausible reading of what's your you're wrong your honor because under the scope of review reg the immigration judge facts stand and you're reviewing both decisions and decision the immigration judge decision clearly talks about the burden of proof to to show a likelihood of torture and if you'll allow me i have one more argument that i would like to to reach
had with the lawsuit that i filed in may of two thousand and two we had no authority to address any of my federal claims or any of the state law claims he was only there to review whether the terminations by the university was appropriate or not throughout that hearing in november fifth two thousand and two tried to curtail the nature and quality and type of evidence that we could present he did not want us to present evidence prior to january two thousand and one but that was at the very core of our defense that the different points from sayin had ruled as well that qualified immunity protection and murray individually it's by contention that are both of my clients had a federally recognized rights that both these officers knew of or should have known of essentially a property interest in their job and the terminating them the active interrogation of those property interests are government employees and they are entitled to certain protections the due process interest is twofold both procedural and substantive and certainly this is one of those cases i would argue that they were looking at with this really have it's going well surely they could have foregone and in fact interesting only enough they get forgo the first step they didn't have their creed activation  procedures they waive that went straight to the state personnel board hearing they could have actually not been the state personnel board they could have filed the instant action right off the bat there's no exhaustion type requirement before bringing their action in district court what hollenbeck did in the past was i think he said marginally relevant and i think president found basically it was a material fact i think the reason for that's kind of obvious and that is there was really no contesting the fact that there had been flex time in the past the factual question at the hearing was didn't the new chief illegally change that didn't he issue a memo saying that it wasn't that memo on the cover of the log book and didn't you see that and those issues were litigated  criminal intent i don't know what happened in the criminal case and i think the point is it doesn't really matter for purposes of this proceeding but i can see how you could you would tell a jury that over and over and over again to try to get a different result of criminal case well this is a bit unusual general is conducting a criminal investigation and which time university has no notion of when questions are going to be asked what questions should be asked or even what crimes or who's being investigated for all the universe would have known at that time they could have been completely and such that it's soon as the university got a report back from the a g it's that we're we find a crime was committed we're going to file the charges then the university took action and provided under our police officers bill of
have one point one lead to an incorrect application of the law and should be reversed on the ground secondly in the event that the court does not believe it has jurisdiction to reverse on that ground the government would seek reversal based upon a reasonable by blakely we tried to persuade him that there was a stipulation that was adequate and it's very clear that the seven month sentence is not a reasonable sense of the government's given months to serve her seven months at home home arrest home arrest there was no i think the answer i think the answer is he believed that although the government had argued at the time of the sentencing that bar offered proof which was voluminous and here's what the defendant did today in arizona here's what the that's a first request but i think the next question is there isn't any definition to the question why would we have to reach that now if it has to go back anyway you don't have to reach it now but i think there's a lack of clarity in terms of what whether to speak on the question of reasonableness because seven months from arrest on this record is not reasonable now last thing i want to mention for the court spent if it evidently this court in united states versus do post last month you even though likely was the state of washington the titian and the guidelines are federal and the supreme court never said that in fact it said the opposite that the guidelines were mandatory and therefore thousand forced mistaken you're talking about decision a law that was mistake but he had a reasonable reliance on that law i thought the only time that he could reasonably rely on what the law was was when he had the money from the bankruptcy courts that if you want to go back to that point here the right to rely on law that is constitutional and constitutional law at that time as we now know would not permit mandatory guidelines that permit a district court though this purely a judicial act and i think it was it was an act of the legislature the supreme court read into the sensing reform act the savings clause that congress intended and that's clear when you read the book or prior decision and number of people who were creditors of accuracy think they could not benefit from that so i want to clarify there i think at the heart of his argument used is a question for this court whether the government can or whether this court can really say th the defendant was there did you listen to him is there anything that you disagree with that that you think is wrong and and the defendant said no that you were correct i think the exact passage of the transcript indicates that mr rose at that point