MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
believe on form i sixty seven indicates that the interview was conducted in spanish language and what's interesting is that there is nothing in the three page statement in spanish the only manner in which we have to be able to tell what occurred and what we consider to be the due process violation in this case is domestic violence exception when the petty offense exception are my understanding is that we have a seventy three point five the initial the first one were the mr  i certainly would have had an opportunity once before and immigration judge to be able to cement his application for the to be to make that application and indicate i've been in the united states i've been here for more than ten years and i have qualifying relatives and i have the requisite extreme hardship to ask the question today what prejudiced results i think that if you w there is no agency that does not provide a procedural remedy other than the challenge that we bring to the court today and saying that this was an unlawful order there is no procedure there is no appeal that would lie  opportunity to collaterally attack the original proceeding or are we really proceeding in this proceeding now and saying that now because he's in the country and has constitutional process rights which he didn't previously  there has to be a process provided for him with regard to anything he's claiming now i think it's a practical matter if the agency has the wherewithal to issue a lawful for the purpose for which it was used i e to remove her from the country and then when he was at the border and presumably under established constitutional doctrine didn't to apply for a discretionary case of leave versus eddie and that he was properly removed or i'm sorry he was properly reinstated in one thousand nine as the court's questions have have indicated there's nothing  as i understand your position you would say that even if she were otherwise eligible now for some form of discretionary relief she would not be eligible to apply for it because of her earlier  the constitutional problem here is that at the border people in fact have little or no in the way of the process rights and when they come back in and say that this was quite clear about this illegal they are illegally once they're here they're how constitutional status changes in terms of there's no there's no constitutional problem with applying this this is just reinstated next but i would move forward in these circumstances that would i would be a first argument and then secondly there's there's there's clearly there's no
we currently have a complaint pending in lee county against her and life form and that complaint realizing great part of this course finding but we do have an alter ego claim against her to make the  medica between her and insiders mostly her sisters we think that she filed the structure eleven and is doing this allocation to try and minimize the amount of disposable income ultimate question is why is this liquid dated comprehend that this debt is not unlikely dated almost everything mr mathers said would require a hearing in facts and evidence to determine the alter  that have a specific value in the judgments the specific numbers in the judgment and i guess judge cricket was asking does that have the effect of liquidating that amount because she was a partner we treat that in your view well st of all i'd say you have to have to get past the bad face in order to even look at that  and there would have to be a showing that she there's have to be a show and that could be done in a reasonably quick airing that she's personally liable for that
this case with the one supreme court the reports here are the evidence in the record shows that it was more much more unreliable than that with work in jail here the only possible distinction the good to see that the government is trying to divisions one point two miles away from there so he's either lying about his location which i would say is what the government would like you have you believe or if he's telling the truth that what gentleman whichever way we see he's lying and there's other information in the record also that suggests he doesn't want to be held accountable which is the lynchpin of the florida j l the person not only has to be reliable but he has to give predict information that predictive information has to be corroborated and we have neither one of those things here he was able to predict anything he told the operator he had lit it didn't know where the man with the gun had come up in order  respect to that record it's clear if you look at the true telegram excerpt at twelve fifteen forty one fifty two and fifty three to look at all that what it shows is the officer testified he comes up with this like guy who has just pulled a gun on somebody else at that point is not reasonable for the officer her to ask him to dispose likes to pull his own weapon as a defensive measure all
then if we go shoot the teacher additionally recognizable documents and think we've got to be the next step right that is the crux of the issue there has to do with looking at this would be a basis for this conviction to qualify if you can consider if we could consider it then i think right and just much more significant problem it makes it a much stronger  it you know separate never considered this kind of document i think that's correct i really never considered that you know the document existed like i've never seen anything like this before i think california house you want to reserve over there but i think you will hear from the government to proposed or created a serious risk of potential injury to another yes he does and he didn't admit to those facts for purposes of a factual basis for the plea but he did let those facts and that's where i context the government's position is that the charging documents in conjunction with that statement would have been insufficient to find him to determine that another  i guess the government's position is that that distinction there is a distinction there but we don't believe the distinction is significant enough for her to be barred from this court's consideration i mean if you look at the spectrum of documents that have gone before the court just this circus certification falls under yeah i mean i think we're looking at is we want we don't want to go back in to do another fact finding we want to look at doctors that are reliable and this our submission is that in agreeing to it it's reliable that it would fall different between the two that makes one not a lesser depth in the first degree requires the property be taken from from the person robbery the second degree you can buy it if i threaten you or threaten physical harm against you and then take something from is the specific statute that you pled guilty to stepped in the first degree i think is a categorical match the specific part of the statute which is that i believe one he says it has to be taken from the person of another so i think it's  you remember the case for an excuse me that's exactly what the of the of the defense did in both of those cases where the record explicitly shows that there was an adoption by the defendant of the facts and we don't have that we don't even have
your honor the court my name is diane cuts go and i represent william miller and this appeal that arises from mr miller's chapter eleven bankruptcy question for the court today is whether or not know taxes can be exceptions for discharge contained in section five twenty three should be narrowly discharged and equities are particularly compelling i risk either a dollar in this section eleven eleven forty one and it also refers to five twenty four eleven forty one except for the general mission with regard to discharge section  recovery of debts that arose from a confirmation if you go back to paragraph one specifically that paragraph can only be read to mean the post petition interest here because it talks about interest that accru ability you do not need to file same in bankruptcy it's just a question of what that survives later in bankruptcy to be able to recover from the bankruptcy state you need to file a claim you need that claim to be allowed and the further specification of unsecured simply recognizes the fact secured claims are paid separately before you get to the question of priority of unsecured claims so there's no contradiction in the statute whatsoever section five twenty three says you refer to section i was out and for taxes of the kind it doesn't  it's going to do or not going to do you know i would just use two types of cases one would be a case where we said this is the amount of our claim and that's just simply this is what we're seeking to recover from the bankruptcy estate and that's that's all that means that's the discharge abilities a totally four and eleven forty one now eleven forty one of course specifically within its own contours says that there can be no discharge of a dot except from discharge under five twenty three so in my view the most natural reading of the claim to allow filed allowed and unsecured because you curate is treated separately for section five seven priority status to kick in so without reading you look at section five twenty three
district which has been terrorized by hostile indians a mysterious writer known as a rule man who seems to be the leader of the indians is happily pursued by alan scott who is secretly investigating the murder  desire most respected citizen surely you can explain i was in the tunnel when surely i heard someone behind me as i turned a figure that looked at me like a huge batch struck me down and rush lost his father well i'm sorry but that's not my business i think mr hayden committed to change his mind
it doesn't mean it's clearly somebody else's it was the laconic it was not in a locked location of the gnomes and let's say let's say it was locked up with the expectation of privacy before mr sawyer said this pipe back and then later but that was his back so that the police had opened up the back i think the record shows that once they found the into this abandonment argument is you know a story or had left it behind there's no name no phone number on the outside of it there was no plan from sorious perspective of getting that back
if if you prepared on that did it go beyond whether i would change country conditions or what you had to show about so i mean that still would be a determination that would have to be made purpose and i only have thirty seconds and i'd like to see that for all right thank you
your honour's greetings from cedar rapids pleasure to be in front of you this morning for that ex husband to get a green card the petition was approved however the couple divorced and the husband never received a visa or green card from that marriage a fast forward eighteen years and samuels has married her fourth marriage to a gentleman from jamaica eighteen years later she files a petition for his gentleman or her husband in which she's still married for him to get a green card to attain permanent residen and one of the many questions that she responded to was have you ever filed a petition for any other person before and she in correctly marked the no box she was prosecuted for that she was sent to prison for that miss sandal's  at the trial the defense for the trial attorney argued that there were the chucking in the wrong box was not a purposeful willful or not with knowledge and an event it wasn't material well how do we know it wasn't willful or knowledge well as part of her petition for her current husband mysterious fully disclosed her prior marriage she marriage and the government states well she didn't want the gratian office to scrutinize that second marriage well that's not true and that's not true by all the times that she disclosed that she was previous marriage what she didn't know was that even though he obtained no benefits from getting a green card or visa that is considered being filed  yes it has to be the decision being made for it to be material house to be on the current marriage is this current marriage a legitimate marriage and at the trial the immigration officer said well if i would have known about the marriage eighteen years ago i would have investigated it and it would have enough i would have determined that it was a fake marriage then ms samuels can never beliefs i respectfully disagree on right the immigration the immigration officer at the trial and the district court experts that we relied on was that his testimony doctor's testimony was well if i would
or was to restart his medical research and he the accused and he alleges that tech school of medicine violated the settlement agreement that he had entered into with them to because of that issue and that issue was not in the voluntarily points and those are two rather large issues for mr isaacs and that those are the differences between the plants and they were not just the
man writing to the rescue of jimmy and macdonald is alan scott who is circling the indians hoping to head them off at the pass and agent of the little man by allen's dog when he has found the getting close to us already he suspects me we got the right just
thousand and fourteen he filed two things and this is the key the first was a motion to set aside the initial joint parity arrangement claiming that because the mother file so quickly after the divorce she really was committing fraud he had no inten what should be done as far as the best interests move straight to that and that's what they thought it was that said although they will he said first of all he said two things he said and this is his argument this is a transcript but he says first of all oh no
he was also asked by the trial judge during the point colloquy if he had a chance to consult with us attorney about the consequences of the quantity and he answered affirmatively that is correct your honor but the judge never asked for example did you discuss with your attorney did you the maximum possible sentence for this crime and any case that will require you are picking the circumstances where the evidence shows that mr anderson was mentally retarded had limited experience of the criminal justice system contest this issue that mr initial did not understand the government simply asserts that mr anderson mr anderson's understanding was objectively unreasonable and i submit that that's that's not the standard the standard is whether mr anderson himself understood the d mr anderson had expressed fear of martin to the police and this was part of the record third despite this no fear both men were present together and questioned jointly during the plea taking procedure the court or are there any cases situation where mr anderson has stated to the police that he was afraid of the kind of martin and had acted out of fear in the underlying crime and had in fact his sofa with a pipe which caused martin to become more angry with him this is a particular voluntarily the preliminary hearing transcripts as well as the plea taking were before the state and district courts both of which showed that mr martin was the moving force behind the crime and that he had and that mr  fifteen years to life in that he didn't say i understand i'm going to receive fifteen years and i didn't even respond in any way when directly asked that question correct he did not so what you're the strongest thing the state can point to to suggest that he did understand what sentence he was going to receive if accord except to display the surrounding circumstances what great requires that he be fully aware of the consequences and he was right i think the only evidence is that he didn't understand and the record is silent as to whether or not he did and the court but the court court made no effort to inquire further on that issue i'd also like to point out with respect to the mental retardation evidence one way or another whether mr armstrong in fact understood what the elements of those charges were what the differences were it just shows you know for second degree it's better than i just found that i asked the question because i think a little curious i probably read
and it is the defendant's argument that they phrase when you read with all the other instructions that it implies that when the defendant got intoxicated he intended solutions that's the problem in this case the prosecutor didn't just say oh yeah i was right starting while here and always through closing they were hammering away on this instruction they were criminally responsible you were criminally
violent nature of that alleged incident based upon the separate documents that were presented to the court the court was presented with the charging documents the judgment of conviction as well as the i think you can do both i don't think mention any of the facts of the two thousand and eleven conviction it is true that he referred to it as a very serious offense and serious conviction and that is completely the case in that two thousand and eleven s forty seven rounds of ammunition in connection with that machine gun to extended magazines and this was all in public the defendant was found in a car with two other individuals just outside it be a public hospital in addition t and then the last point that i just like to make is that even if the record had relied on the underlying facts of the two thousand memorandum and i'm reading from it and i quote in two thousand and eleven when garcia was nineteen years old he and another young man aren't conspired in the murder of a rd person those are defend its own words in addition the p middle of the day and in addition to that if you look at the documents submitted by the government below which were the criminal complaint and the indictment in the case they provide a factual basis underlying a conviction of
doctor greater speculates that his inclusion in this restructuring was somehow discriminatory and retaliatory or that speculation is not a substitute for actual evidence and there's not a shred of evidence anywhere in the record to support these claims caused by a reaction by a temporary infection that was caused by some type of reaction to medication that's the only evidence in the record about dr gray's condition and further the diary of another virus and opposing argument is that there are e mails that point to his attention so that it's simply not credible when he says he didn't know about it when he was a recipient of emails which reflect disability and he also included approximately twenty five dollars other members of the technical meant to parent in the restructuring so dr graters only with offer any type of evidence to support these claims an whether what he complained about was disagreements with the back that he received about his performance specifically critiques he received about this presentation and he gave in late to two thousand and fourteen those those complaints do not constitute protected conduct
reasonable doubt that the substance mr sweeney had was marijuana where it was just a schedule wrong or schedule two substance the statute under which he was convicted and he says schedule was discriminating and then class where there's no rational basis for this discrimination and in fact there may be issues with even more strongly protected classes which i didn't get into that in the brief but  nationalities certain races there may be a disparate impact in terms of who is more likely to have children by more different mothers and who is more likely to be penalized by the court for that lead the supreme court was looking at a very similar controlled substance statute where again it was clear what the substance ridas and the court held that it was not acceptable to apply a modified categor do that and then the federal government is free to inferences are laws so that's really not an issue of concern and if the states do want to i mean that possible and as simply something that states can do in our federal system there is no way to stop them from doing that the solution is for the federal government to apply its own laws if it wants them to be applied and s where there is ambiguity in the raw it needs to be applied in favor of the immigrant and i see the rest of my
instead dismissed i mr celine's application for the sole reason that the fingerprints he had on fire had somehow expired but no statute rule regulation or anything else with the force of law are provided there was notice in this case now it doesn't really logically follow to say that i want to go get my fingerprints renewed but i didn't have notice that i needed to do it and that's really what the differences here  that's true but again that's why the immigration doesn't stop there during the hearing when they said that they didn't have the fingerprints the immigration judge made some interest back to here where was require me in l would be actual well certainly i understand that you've had a problem ensuring while the french your prints were taken and you know you get and you get a person from another country who has problems with the english language and you go down to the building downtown you go down there you can go down there at four in the morning and wait and wait and wait and then when you get to the person that's going to help you they'll say oh sorry closing time come back tomorrow so people are frustrated the we have to in those cases they didn't have notice here they went to go get the fingerprints you can't say that you didn't have notice if you went to go comply with the requirement if he carried well the queen was  published after an
basically controlling the movements right then and there with the words were never let him get out well we're going to block the entrance to the front door so that soon as he comes down from the turnstile so easy as it turns out we got in the officer said to him at that point clear that a seizure is not affected when an officer intends to effect one it is affected when an individual concedes to that action what it individual complies with police requests police commands however you'd like to characterize them sufficient to satisfy reasonable suspicion under terror but police are ok however each individual action compounded on top of the next the straight along as we are but maybe not necessarily criminal he turned  i think the beggars belief that an individual who hears possible varies from immediately behind them turns around better their police officer or not they hear possible there is behind them they turn around and it turns the sound they see an individual they walk eyes with that individual in that case we decided not to we did not see a crime however see a crime is not the standard for terry the officers didn't steal crap or see a crime in terry when they saw the two individuals facing the store they were simply walking up and down the street or a suspicion that this what we need  when the testimony is there he did not say there was nothing wrong with it he said he did not see a crime will but the standard is reasonable articulable suspicion criminal act in reality are there but what our position that we had achieved sufficient suspicious it articular facts to satisfy the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity standard at the moment defendant stepped over the railing that so that's why he did not seek to rest him right at that moment he went to conduct a few interview by his own testimony when he approaches and says hey get your head out your pockets defended refuses to comply asks again defendant refuses to comply continues on his right which is his legal right however just because defendant has a legal right to continue on his way does not necessarily mean that the officer can't interpret that given all of the other things that have occurred as evidence of criminal activity all the circumstances