MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
was wrong and they were persecuting both of them then your client would get would get asylum because he was he was motivated by his religious beliefs and the other one would not get asylum because he was not motivated by his religious beliefs i think it's a technicality in the law and that persecution and basically there was one threatening to phone call and he didn't know actually made the phone call and he didn't specify instead simoni as to what the threat actually was the second phone call just i don't think that there have been makes clear as to why they were murdered but then you can say that it was done by the military so even if we assume that that was because they were refusing to comply with corruption as well  would be that he would be persecuted on account of his religion well that's the way assuming that the record is assuming the record supported our councils description and i'm not accusing her misrepresenting the record but just to so you don't feel you have to quarrel with my hypothetical let's assume that the record shows that he was a well known christian and that in carrying out his business  manifestation of what they you know their actions of their religious beliefs is the objective manifestation of a work act and so in this case the objective manifestation of his belief is that he so if the objective manifestation is something that out the persecutor is going after him for the right i think that but it's his religion that makes him do it i'm having a little future and the government did not make an individualized showing and the judge did not make an individualized analysis of this future persecution she relied on the generalized country condition reports which are not specific enough for the
awarding the fees equally between each firm based on the fact that each firm have spent about the same amount of time in the case commissioners for all for
have any questions from the second as you can happen to answer those regarding henry's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at this stage of the proceedings he is required to show that his claim has arguable basis in fact in an argument basis and especially positively provided by the record and at this stage of the proceedings should be taken as true in this claim like the defendant brown he alleges that trial counsel is there bring his finances use to the trial court's attention and  council we know for a fact that she misrepresented him being on medication when she told the trial court he wasn't on medication and  however this is a first page postcondition proceeding where the threshold is very low for the pleading that he has made any constitutional claim the gist of a constitutional claim to have an article basis in fact  go base as what's on the record doesn't positively her by the claims in the petition we don't know what happened between mr green council there any discussion whatsoever the fact that he's living wrote responses in a structured environment yes no question doesn't mean anything i mean one of his allegations he's drowsy so why would he be having outbursts these are all questions that should be determined in the second stage and we ask that you filed a majority opinion in brown and reject the state
involved to do one point one in three does not if your client qualifies for the safety valve you may have an argument about capping it thirty but the court determined that your client did not qualify for the safety valve and that event do we have an issue to talk about that and this is of this is a force of law there was a comment made a few minutes ago that the guidelines of the time of this case were not were not the force of law but i would disagree with that observation on their mistretta versus united states your clients and title the safety of all really is there a second issue for us to consider when the government's argument is very straightforward mandatory minimum trumps you're arguing about fifty or thirty level cap isn't that the case  some subsequent developments here and these guidelines are now advisory they are not mandatory they do not have the force and effect of law i understand that judges may inform themselves by reading the guidelines but we have we have remanded hundreds and perhaps thousands of but it was an advisory at the time of his commission of his crime out now that is now it is then then of course saying it's retroactive and i don't believe i don't believe the court can find it has found in the past that these that this guideline would be guidelines say exactly that so your argument that the guidelines have force of law doesn't help you with all if the guidelines themselves say a mandatory minimum trumps guideline calculation it no because they have made this amendment six fourteen which testimony regarding where he lived in two or one of the court of valuated the government's investigation and the government's agent who testify including the reports submitted to photos and diagrams way things really live but it's allowed that he can live up to the time of the hearing and even at the time when the court was expressing his concern that he wasn't satisfied with what the defense said i offered to let him testify again the judge said no that's that's not that's or lived with for a short time were just savoring that they even knew him those are things beyond his control and he's doing in jail in san diego trying to say he helped me out so it's a little bit difficult to put this burden on
you're signing and she start to read your
process one of the the near term and one of the panel members was questioned by the court and made it known that there he was from belgrade montana and that kid he had very strong opinions about methamphetamine for the reason that his two adult children were then nineteen and twenty two years of age or both been involved in methamphetamine right so the problem that we have to deal with is whether or not whatever he said into the nari word affected the rest of the or it is not correct it is correct you area so this is a very small community and many of the any of the other people on the jury were in the boat in belgrade area and so it did it had a very direct impact there we think on their way of thinking that this person who would it could potentially be harmful to the government's case as well but it certainly was harmful i think to the defense case because they government's theory of the case was that mr lidle was the the manager if you will of the drug operation or addressed with regards to the first issue what's really in play here and that's the similarities if there are any between mr libels case in the case of mockers or stewart from the government's perspective there are sign were really an issue in this case judge a lawyer would recognise that he's got over ten years of experience on the bench i've seen him in similar circumstances style of the individual in person by person for your process and has some global is and then we were sitting for jury selection in this case and i was personally expanded by the number of individuals who had personal experience with methamphetamine either through family members or friends or neighbors and a judge no from what the court and the other jurors were hearing during the course of the day and i think that's why there wasn't a lot of reaction to mr smith's comments i think one thing that's important to note is the very next juror who was heard from juror number eleven was asked do you have any concerns mind you think that would be that the individual would have a concern and want to talk further about the story on all the lidl or some of these issues involving methamphetamine and that person did not want to engage in that conversation did not seem to be concerned by mr smith's comments the threats that may have been tendered against his children he would have known who did it and did not recognize a defendant's name in this case but i think the key distinction is the difference between the nature of the statements being expert like in the stewart case and being just of a personal nature from a concerned parent in this case and it was it in the afternoon and we did courthouse that plumbing problems that's why we did the second day of the trial up in helena and so i think that that he has contributed to its records in attentions not dealing with the of that should have been done in terms of asking the panel more questions based on my motion for a mistrial on i think that it was late in the afternoon probably forty four thirty when i expired thank you very much these cases just argued will be submitted for decision
they wanted to increase the membership of them or get a in response to the motion for reconsideration the board set out to me that that was the testimony the fact finders conclusion was the evidence did not support the koreans that she was being targeted because of control of the family membership but there was evidence given the way she testified there was open source of poor the conclusion but the she was being targeted because they want to have somebody else to do to do the work made was that you don't have a father and there's no male in the household of the children to protect you so you can do as we say  triply making statements about his mother and the board and sort of according to the court discounted that in only focused on the not protected reasons and so it was remanded to the board to reconsider that in this case there was simply no direct sister's attackers and she never had face to face confrontation with these men so there's really just it's just that to take his connection to brain between their threats and her specific family membership no further questions and already thank you thank you
turpitude depends on whether the individual is convicted under that part of the statute involving intent to commit grand or petite larceny where that part of the statute involving an intent to commit any other felony as a result the immigration judge resorted to exactly the problem is that you know in order for this court's conclude that he was convicted of a crime involving multitude the record a conviction has to unambiguous least showed such all the record of conviction shows here is that he pled to a be reminded for the administration agencies to determine specifically with more evidence admitted what contrition or had pled guilty the trouble is realistically you're never going to get anything other than what you got i mean i guess you could go back and ask the to something other than the fax charge what do you what do we do if we don't have people versus west noted but we just have no that may be beyond what you've prepared well  first for your honor with regard to this issue about now well i think what would be appropriate if we put the court's permission would be to allow both sides to submit letter breach perhaps within seven days of argument today on that issue an issue of burden of proof that the government was raising here it has to be locked no it doesn't have to be on privilege century in california that the car doors have to be locked but you can enter it you can put your hand in the in the window but my point is that you can enter a lock to be a call and planned to commit any crime you can enter a lack of vehicle and conspire to commit any
that the reason she was transferred or it was there was an independent investigation of the two complaints against her for making statements that  affair was going on between one officer and this straight quarters and another and that bad investigator found that she added pardon me that is not the point the point is that the way it was received back her coworkers situation that the investigator described the report was potential and so far you  what is is there any evidence the explanation for why it was a creed or retaliation or discrimination it is not your honor and we have to take this  ok anything else if you don't have any other questions i will rely on the great thank you thank you
mirandized they're not claiming a miranda violation but that he screamed at him for the course of the three interviews the night and breakfast and then let him use the restroom until about eleven o'clock is one of these three  large part on the concurrence which is that basically pointing in their view that you view of three or three of your colleagues felt that point a gun could never be excessive force on the fourth amendment and arrived were put down on a couch the mother was handcuffed and placed there the dogs were already outside that's one of our factual contentions and they were put further away they were not running around and not large animals that would justify the police having their guns out  guns for let's say even twenty minutes was a violation of the constitution things i cited in my brief that regards excessive force which state that they shouldn't be using potentially deadly force which is terribly frightening to people that are who i'm focusing on the moment before they were handcuffed when they had the guns drawn out or when it entered the residence where they didn't know what the situation was ok but what we're not looking at whether or not it was  e force we're looking at it because of the posture of this case in terms of whether it was clearly established at that time that that constituted excessive force and wondering what case we're relying on right now the other forces that were used are not only the that way carrying him down is the four hour interview where grant officer grant who is in charge of the screening at my client they say it was three different interviews but it was really four hour barrage of time with my client was saying everything i'm doing is legal under state law i like doctor's recommendation i've got all the stuff i only have a few plants what's the problem here and he was being yelled at in raided when he tried to get out to relieve a  was claiming that he was growing somewhere in the neighborhood of ten or twelve can this points legally because he had a doctor's recommendation
there is an assignment clause and the reason why it needs to be there is because when i when i gas station owner wants to purchase a gas station from an oil company he has to get along usually it's an s b a along and the lender wants to most cases if there's contamination unless the lender is also covered in the event of default on the loan so that's why you haven't done the provision there and that's why you have also an assignment provision there the question that's the question and what does the reason whatsoever mean well there's an ambiguity right there because reason and under the cohen case which reason is i don't like your your word purple cause well for a reason your honor under the calling if i don't have to i don't have to give you a good reason or i don't have to have the burden of establishing that there's a because you have a gas station owner and i think it is in the background of why but it's i don't think it's really important in this context but you have a gas station owner who has the right under federal law to purchase a gas station and if the oil policy no your honor that's not what i'm saying what i'm saying is that the contract provides for term it provides for and i find it under certain circumstances in the well companies discretion if it has a reason make change there standardize contracts after this point so what we're saying is that they denied us the opportunity to purchase this station and then turned around and gave everybody else that opportunity and we're saying that that was in fact thin
rule and the state argues that because there is a general verdict form only one conviction should remain so regardless all parties agree there should only be one conviction in this case and typically in this situation the matter should be remanded back down to the trial the radar device there is doubt the state cruise for ratings going seventy eight miles per hour therefore it because the state conceded that mr reagan should only have one conviction for and immediately even attempting to elude and the traveler initially was going to impose judgment on count three circuit court intended to enter judgment on because i had a discussion at the sentencing hearing and although the record does show that the court had been all set to sentence the defendant only on count three the record shows that that was because of the court's erroneous belief that the jury found him guilty on count three and that the court had then subsequently dismissed count four as a lesser included offense and both of both halves of that of the court statement were inaccurate it would be one thing if the record showed that the court had been about to impose a judgment only on count three because the court was aware of this general problem and has selected count three as the more serious count and that the state had somehow persuaded the court to enter judgment on both counts if that were the case then the then this court could probably select in this case the attempt to flee or unquestionably involved in all her license plate so the defense starts at the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of aggravating fleeing or attempting to elude on count four and for that reason even if count of aggravated flame or attempting to elude would remain but the state's arguing that the court should find that the state presented sufficient evidence on count three and therefore remand for a determination of which is department policy or was insufficient to ensure accuracy the weight of the evidence was that the mater was required to be carried out recalibrated that he did so using tuning forks and that he would have done so at most two or three days before the charge of crimes there was further evidence was sufficient regarding the aggravating factor alleged and count three the defendant's argument depends on the suggestion that worst schedule of mangled recalibration was insufficient to ensure that his new self themselves every ten minutes and there was no evidence presented in this case that this new type of radar system that moore said that he had must be medically tested with the frequency employed by the defendant cited cases most of which date from the sixty's and seventy's during case like that the jury in this case like the jury in the birch case which is one of the cases cited and discussed by the parties had evidence that the radar has been tested for accuracy some unspecified amount of time before the defendant subsections the court could pick which one to impose judgment on and here the trial court stated that mr really was not guilty of come to which was another license plate matter which possession of all two questions played on the vehicle
off the face of the map in fact the court made quite clear the sprinkler made quite clear and the indians about the guidelines were still relevant the question was whether they were mandatory whether there was any discretion on the part of the street court of the park but i factor pertaining to the disparity and the united states senate and commission on three occasions has indicated that the disparity between crack cocaine and cocaine powder one hundred to one disparity is not reasonable counsel never brought to the to judgment kevin's attention there with the defendant actually possessed with something other than crack cocaine and in fact the defendant stipulated in writing and i quote from the stipulation is that the part sentencing purposes when we look at the guidelines which a defendant knew although advisory we're going to be relevant to his sentence when you look at the guidelines it defines cocaine base as crack cocaine there's no question that the defendant in this case possessed in fact crack cocaine he also did in fact just powder cocaine however he admitted possessing the cocaine base for sentencing purposes with with regards to her argue the defense's argument that there should be a disparity  under the guidelines now it's no longer the final say on thirty booker's so why wouldn't the court then why wouldn't that debate now shift into the district court something because judge me kevin is still following the the president of this court in united states v davis when this court specifically said that congress his decision to punish the sale of crack cocaine more do however there was nothing that if i'm not mistaken nothing in booker that indicated that the court should or is required to consider a disparity between crack and powder cocaine well did he actually  did state that he did consider that furthermore the court did state and i quote that the guidelines are advisory so the court was aware that it was free to sentence a defendant in any that term of imprisonment within the statutory range that the court deemed reasonable talk about the disparity i mean back in powder as a consideration not to my memory your honor i could be wrong but i do not recall the judge's civically referring to that i do know that the judge did say that he did consider all of the defendant's arguments prior to imposing the sentence in this case but also your honor i would argue the court does not waive its first argument that that this court in fact lacks jurisdiction and the government would ask this court to dismiss this case outright because the court last year lectures stiction to entertain this appeal under the we have that the argument is under submission by the court you know