MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
well i guess i finished  i know it looks that way but if the only way to locate their headquarters and perhaps match the whole gang how do you figure that well i restrict the police to release them and trail them until they leave town no radio
motion to consider an additional argument regarding a challenge to a sentence but there's one issue that i want to address today and that is whether the case should be remanded back to the district court on the setting issue because  not apply there's no reason for remain and i think that if we if we knew that the proper stack signing had occurred in the mr court there was just let's assume that your argument doesn't so since they're not mandatory anymore what happens to the safety of their considerations and we not think nothing no case law ha you used your time but i'm going to give you a minute for rebuttal
burrell so that's really it's contours of the conspiracy and hence what was on thank you cancel gary to another insurer to further the conspiracy same's and she's acknowledging engaging in discussions with gary drama about plans and aspirations concerning the conspiracy so those three things and maine were progressing and they were commenting on how good things were going that's a colts seventy two from sixty to seventy three in eighty one eighty two so this is this is not someone who just happens to be around when the search form and on the computer those were not counted twice so this is a very conservative figure that he came up with one thousand twenty five and one thousand twenty five half of them are confirmed to be actual come numbers with with the bax which  fifty five probably hundreds more i think was this was his quote so he made it clear that even if he was even if it was a quite short he's he's convinced that this this is vast and we're talking much more tha
i got the flying sort on the control just before i crashed but i lost my god and i tried to look for greatness how they disappeared they must've taken over the hills on foot so where are we know about back where we started except that we do know the grave has been hanging out at your i've seen him around here and talk to him of few times but i don't know anything about what to talk to him about well no mechanic for the last time asked me to do some work on a truck load for him i couldn't handle so yesterday it was i told him to try benton's over on the area we plan to concentrate on destroying troop train very well where it is fast as possible we must have a defense is completely disorganized before we start our invasion from the moon yes  no i don't remember anyone answering that description but of course we've got a lot of jobs are here and i don't know all the drivers about these trucks that are on hand outs well this one and this one for a couple of my regular customers that runs across country java came that truckload of radios was a phony hold back in with the fake door i'm sure they're planning on hiding something inside probably over a guy and that's what i'm afraid of they'll probably start blasting again any time now i've sent ted out to the airport to stand by on a plane with some light bombs so as we have any reg on attacks i'll fly out and try to locate that truck and radio ted the bomb
got see what's happening must not be allowed to land calculate the time of their arrival and have your a gun set up ready to blast them this time you must not fail your own life and the future of our people are at stake i understand your
it was one of their ray guns and medics laboratory if i could get hold of that would be easy to blast open air pressurized buildings and really put them out of business all you got to do is get the gun that may not be too tough we brought some nitrogen oxides adjusted me yes there's a small tank something's wrong with the ventilating system
sold the people on the moon are planning a direct attack on the world soon as they're saboteurs have softened up our defenses getting the chances of succeeding you've seen what the reagans have already done here if they send out a fleet of rocket ships of the time it's weapons like those or perhaps even larger ones it would be difficult to hold out against that's our best move would be to attempt an attack on the would be a terrific disadvantage i don't even see how it could land ships than face a direct guns we just can't sit here and wait to be attacked riddick the ruler told me they plan to attack after their saboteurs here have accomplished their mission if we could run of the gang operating here we may stave off the attack until we have better prepared to meet it yes that's certainly the first few of them left and i must keep those for an emergency and it will be necessary for you to take up your career of bank robbery maybe i'm already over old for that i know but you would be wise to continue to obey my orders your more recent activities would be of extreme interest to the but we must have more money you've got to get it done by any more bank job and to have now business law to figure out something else is cody right over there
return immediately if he has worsening symptoms and or if he has any problems in the meantime should return immediately to the hospital and that's not the sort of thing that's ordinarily directed so that the first two thing of the e r visits that mr egli was stable from a cardiac perspective i think that i think that's correct so which which physician's opinion in particular was to discounted may go to the mental impairments but how do you get around which i've got are identified on the physical impairments that the cardiologist here cleared him to return to work after the surgery and then january of two thousand and bother would be a problem for them and then when you start site checking some of the patients supposed normality indications that the the mental side of it again the judge like a judge see this getting that it's not the physical side that yes that's exactly and so yeah you can show up to a softball game but that of his his daughter but that doesn't thereby s first i wanted to emphasize one piece here as this claim its ability sort of fend for himself if you will and this becomes most apparent on the record this is argue
aspect seems to apply to whether or not the court orders that before the or at some other time it's still permissive whether or not the party chooses to jury instruct parties going to give proposed jury instructions the party doesn't have to give them until the party until all the evidence is in its promise of another it's a party would choose to take that if they can and that's based upon the federal that wolf thirty one talks about or plaintiffs may or the court may direct at an earlier reasonable time in this case the court did direct at an earlier reasonable time the trial court laid out anticipated yes but things do happen in trial when you have to modify the jury instructions i don't think there was any indication at all that modifications would not be allowed according to the evidence that was submitted i think that because for example the surprise to you but i have some trouble with your case and let me tell you why all right i think that the rules perfectly do allow a trial judge and i am the trial judge at this very moment to have flexibility to ask lawyers to assist the court if they want to submit and instructions on the law we're not talking about prosecuting the case we're talking about educating the court on the law and giving the lawyers an opportunity to do that should they wish to do that but i'm concerned about not appropriate to simply say that if the lawyer wants the silage charge you can do so but you have to do it according to my timetable not according to yours but if you don't comply with that then you will not have an opportunity to salute you know the law to me at a whether or not they're going to be able to satisfy them let me ask you this follow up question what is the then did you know this regarding the court's order in the event and chose not to submit a jury charge what would be the sanction that would be appropriate in hamas for me in terms of his behavior here but i'm just curious about the sanctions he's i refused on three separate occasions to submit proposed jury instructions and on top of that on the season to trial attorney that would take two ron what would have to be stricken the answer on behalf of the defense would have to be stricken would be stricken and then it would be a matter of approval of a judge though in that situation if the situation were exactly reversed i would never jury instructions at all there wasn't a representation that we waived in jury instructions it was we're going to submit them but we're going to do it according to our time schedule and then the second point is i don't see that it's serving the orderly functioning of the court i would actually follow judge slots or argue and i think he's absolutely correct that that was the most drastic sanction and that it wasn't appropriate in this
consequence of this judgment call other treatment providers dr information the probation officer which about it there certainly would be much less objection to a condition that allows a mental health treatment provider to decide on on the treatment going to be an issue when you say might have been an issue because you unwilling to continue to make this record fine then i'm not quite sure that you you can come back and say well but i'd like to cut down on the efficacy of the evidence to prove our element of the i would like to reduce it by fifty percent because i would just like them to take an agent's word you can imagine what would be said in the jury room why didn't we see it why didn't we put we could form a judgment as to whether or not it's the same child i mean you officer you have to believe it's the same person it's like you have to believe my identification works if you can look at it because your client had a certain well under p t or weird pee teen or whatever there were except they were not published during the trial one way to evaluate defendants claim about how dreadful the exhibits were without actually looking at them because of his what i'd  crystallize for the court now exhibit nineteen his magazine of thirty two pages twenty six of the pages were redacted six of them were not the six included was from constable sharon girling of the british officer who could say that she had interviewed the victims of child abuse in their user and that she recognised three of the images as having been taken by gary s knew the apartment where they'd been taken in in great britain she knew that the children were minors at the time indeed they were still the crowd placed on the other four images with that is a different kettle of fish from simply saying that whatever the results of the treatment are allowed to be communicated in conference to the probation officer his consideration
nine seven six is that intellectual property versus twenty one y is if we think that that's not enough and so that that the priority date by the p thomas correct what other argument you have it didn't seem to me that you really argued i mean given the way that people have looked at it made it claims it and discuss that in terms of you failing to meet your burden of proof and since we had that question before i said i mean shouldn't we just told that here but he's just making an argument to support his object and i mean that's fair game he doesn't he wouldn't have to state that is an issue it's an argument to show the board ok i mean look obviously we might not apply that argument but well i thought you have to let me i think i didn't think you quite need to that because i read the court's opinion and i do have some difficulty because every time i see them talking about it they talk in terms of i mean you understand my issue is that the i'm not holding that we're here using its burden of proof standard because it's what's the applicable law but that issue is before us and if it comes out a different way then if then perhaps it's harmless error whatever would happen i don't i would rather not sure that the the board is relying on the burden of proof as opposed to the burden of production because of page two ninety three they say well i'm not required to prove that the coins are pac incorporated
substantial assistance mulching the defendant asked the court to disregard is only counting conviction which was a thirty three thriving with license suspended because it was the crime had been ruled unconstitutional by the washington state supreme court and asked the court to consider a safety valve consideration because of that the court denied the  a sentence to fifty one months if the driving with license suspended conviction have not been counted at all other things being equal his range would have been thirty seven to forty seven months there we would like to submit to the issues for the courts consideration one whether the driving license suspended conviction should be counted under the guidelines and whether safety valve consideration should be made into whether the case should consideration of what you see what you've told us is the unconstitutional prior conviction crusher it isn't is improper the judge should not have considered that to preclude reduction under the safety valve provision now if the guidelines and no longer being mandatory if this case were to be remanded to the district judge and the district judge needs to consult the  charter that's our position that you could do that yes so if you get a rematch and for resentencing you don't have to worry quite as much about the argument you're making on taking into account the unconstitutional clearly a full lateral attack on the state and virtue well if if that's if that's true then the application application of substantial assistance received which is also a statutory application and then it was a decision upon the district court in exercising his full discretion as far as how far down to depart based upon the defendant that motion underneath the guidelines that the government would meet the three five five three is not a mission under the guideline is a motion pursuant statu to the judge is is the government right greg and i i agree thousand i think that what the district court did and exercising of this particular sentence is that he exercised it and i think you statutory application so it doesn't even meet the first threshold question which would require then that book i don't think we even get to that first threshold question of whether lives in this particular case and i think that some of the other stuff guests are beginning to look at that particular line of cases to determine if it does mean threshold question and i think the second circuit was one of them and i believe the tenth circle is one and some have have left it to be addressed in a later time so i think it's the first threshold question that just is doesn't meet and all that  p at the time was a mandatory sentencing guideline case the judge strictly adhered to the guidelines and that's really pointed out by the fact of the strict analysis that he made in deciding wh
motion was based upon the iraqi refugee crisis act which allows iraqis to reopen their case if they were denied asylum after march two thousand and three if the judge denied asylum still the or in part because of change country to prove that there are chinese conditions in the country so we have two bases in order to reopen but as of yet as of an hour ago we still do not have a decision on that motion to reopen from the board i filed twenty such motions eleven so far respondent failed to determine demonstrate persecution on account of any one of the five protected grounds correct ok so for purposes of deciding this right now we have a serious credible and what does that mean in terms of the facts that we're dealing with where you person had friends in high places but it's interesting when he was being tortured electrocuted they didn't say to him we're doing this because of the fire because you burn the military fro it can't even picture additional notice of of that but that's not the standard the standard is once you've established past persecution the government bears the burden of green evidence that it would be safe for the petitioner to return and given the political opinion we also have a calendar practice of the arab muslim majority population discriminating and armenian on account of his religious so your argument would apply to every christian who would come here from there was an estimate of eight hundred thousand to one point two million currently the u s department of state estimates i'm sorry as of two years ago the estimated it had been cut in half and so you think we have room for them and he wants to stay here that's easy enough to get there when you have to at first credibilities party that basically now we have to assume that things that he said before the i j a we have to  about that what do i do with that he never indicated whether before he was the one he was often charged with this crime never indicated whether these individuals who were accusing him whether they knew about his religion for him he never because he didn't run the back party and that the military transferred into the front lines during the first gulf war because he didn't join the back party and that he was forced to relocate his business because of some local individuals
sure he's ever been consistent in the notion that he didn't make an application for asylum yes people think it helped that he said that i think is a point for relief i'm not sure he ever statements aren't facially inconsistent you're still left with the problem that he says he didn't make one of them because the border patrol officer has him making it but at least as to the issue about the statements harm to others as i read to be i use decision with respect to time meaning the opiah it relied entirely on the failure to seek records indicate that medical attention was either necessary or available it's sort of easier to me kind of speculative to say well you couldn't have been seriously injured occurred over a period of time she does say that he requested negative medicine from a friend so there is some indication on his own accord that he needed some type of medicine some type of treatment record was he if lead the country as soon as he escaped or relatively quickly after year scapes so it seems to me perfectly logical that if you're fleeing the authorities after escaping you're not going to stop on the way to try to get medical treat arguments in this case which will be submitted
in other words if you if you post a sign on your boat saying no drugs no alcohol on this boat but you don't enforce that then you have not then then there's that's there's it and somebody gets hurt submit to your honor's that in this case we have some something happened that's very similar to that we had the vessel owner and you certainly have all the time you need to respond thank you and also in our case are there is no evidence that mr malley knew or should have known that mr greasy was ever intoxicated level all we know is that there was that he drank beer on some occasion when mr malley was on board there's no and somebody put them back on the boat or whatever we don't have any knowledge area that's based on a declaration from a third party that was submitted as part of a motion for summary judgment and even further well if i can answer a question is that there's three issues basically that were raised point is the strict liability issue after ordinary negligence and whether this was not arguing strictly bill i don't think i thought i heard him concede that it was
point one motion disposition or case with prejudice at the outset of the litigation there is an issue being raised over whether or not we should have or could have put it sures the next point we would have had no reason to do you right now but i believe dead under any circumstances to see action is up on the step wish it to require a relationship and if you're determined to say there was no attorney client relationship even though this m where they can be liable for mere negligence where their principal and as you are pointing out the principle is the union the principal is subject to liability only if their conduct is arbitrary discriminatory or  or maybe three years or longer another state and peterson particularly found that that wasn't tal situation because it would it would prevent a turning of trade unions from getting good legal advice because that those allegations squarely represent implicate the collective bargaining issues for example on paragraph six of the complaint at page ten of the record the play of wedges carlson has been held up to the members of the there is no right to arbitration in this situation so the allegations of the complaint are directly contradict what mr gooch is our kier that this somehow had nothing to do with collective bargaining and what what peterson peterson was that in the event that there's an attorney client relationship or work that is holding unrelated to collect or like a divorce proceeding or the creation of a will then the ak and single wouldn't apply but for those forced on mr sander that he didn't have any selection but but he went with him anyway and what what peter said pearson found that that situation is is not an independent attorney client relationship and responsible when his discharges are held or he loses other important rights he views the eula tourney as an arm of his union rather than as an individual he has chosen for his lawyer that's the situation that the peers and so forth atkinson peterson and really every other court that has considered this issue on your area asked if there was a court that conserves from a rd party beneficial theory that is being stopped in fact in the spectrum we should have had the right to prove that one exist and if we could do that and if we couldn't prove they have actually i believe we could prove that he's a beneficiary of the title sale to those legal
it was a it was quote was in fact wrong because quote routine testing can easily establish that the warhead does not degrade three point five where is that fact that it doesn't  conventional wisdom he knows all the product mr i take your i take your point and we've all read your brief to me that the real hurdle you have in this case is you have a very detailed district court opinion based on a bench trial where he made numerous numerous findings of fact now maybe a reasonable person could have gone the other way too but that's not sufficient to establish clear error on the part of the district court on this point for is not part of the claims it's there not it's not part of the claimed invention here so because of that reason why you want to one should have been at least one compound to have been selected as a lead compound the skilled person wouldn't wouldn't be able to calculate it and would have found it very difficult to measure precisely because cuff ultimate to such an unstable molecule and then if you don't have the  h we think the district court correctly found that what's going on here is a formulation taken as a whole and that there are there are various things working together to make this difficult to formulate molecule actually usable in a pharmaceutical context and that would include the cycler dextrin it would include the selection of the citric acid and so on and that you know we can't be in a place just by saying well if some of the elements of the claim were no therefore the whole product to guide a person of ordinary skill to select parties and there was no way to improve it in the product and therefore selection about the sum of what's wrong selection of why you want to one