MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
borne out by the record of the immense stipulations of fact that we had this and this case in the decisions of judge you're a middle manager for the state of california you may be the director of corrections but you're still in the middle management situation you state's payroll system that is just it for seventy years and had what'll pay period's the entire state controller system in place nobody has asked you to alter anything when problems come to your attention out you try to do what is humanly possible to alleviate the problem when you find out you have a budget crisis and you cannot hire personnel and you find that some of your own payroll techniques given this new system amendment in order to avoid what the u s supreme court to determine which is that you cannot sue the state any longer as an employee for the fair labor standards act violations only the department of labor can  made in this case of the people that one of these mid level managers not seeking any legal expert opinion or advice from the department of labor or anybody else  regulations simply says that when you have overtime to be paid it is to be paid does this make them or last an employer is that where you're going with this argument i'm sorry your honor it sounds like it's the issues we have are whether or not these people are really could be classified as an employer and whether in any advantage this is really a claim against the state and therefore the eleventh amendment applies and there's a third  control the purse strings that doesn't mean they weren't employers what do you have to say to that i have to say it is that you have to look at the but name decision itself with which i'm familiar because i've had to represent you know home service department into their own homes in the past there are low income wage earners and the county really pays their their salary but what the court found was the ninth circuit was that the state is a co under under the theory that you want the clerk for releasing something relief as to state official violating federal law and actual payment case i don't think you could you would have to have the department of labor come in with you now that's notable in this case to these individuals never got a hold of the department of labor this became a border control claim and the person that handles on the fair labor standards act matters for c d c did go to the department of labor
can put it on the outside hard to put it into research if you put it in a recess the list would still be there as in the case of the it would be more of a stretch to somehow the recess shoulders i don't see where that negates obviousness we've been focused on catching one just to get rejection to on the record perhaps out of the way you do agree that examiner was her the alternate theories presented to the poor that you have an opportunity to respond well with there's a lot of discussion about all kinds of combinations of references but the read and flushed with the outer part of the pen the question is why then other than simply to meet the queen would we take that grip pull it out of the recess put it in an eighty year old adjustable weight likely to be obvious but what cases are we talking about in citation old cases like anderson black rock and so creative was that when the ark had solutions to known problems and an arson comes along and takes those solutions and response was that he didn't know what the an interjection so that you and so the board was trying to figure out what was going on here because remember we had a request for examination that came  the forty publication does not have a name for the recess that was the sole reason that the examiner gave for writing the rejection so when it gets to the board the board has a rejection that is clearly legally efficient there is hardly any reason to dispute that and what can help us at the board stage when it's already before the board a constitution is over and so far it's raising a lot of other references and said oh this teacher is over here this eaters over here the can call that if we can call that the board trying to give him due process we can look at whatever we want but i think that even if the court might disagree with some of that announce it switch which does all of a flaw that still hypertechnical waiver but the board went further the board could have stopped and said xander didn't give us a good reason so we're done reverse it but let me go let me explain to you and how the problems we see with your reasons status of the claim and i guess because it's a reexamination the assumption is it's a valid claim but it was a new crime so what is the status of the claim if firm is the examiner at liberty to reject claims six again on a different ground on a different ground examiner could this century initiate could institute a new rejection at this point but be good enough to fulfill what was the oversight on the part of the examiner and the examiner picked it up by the bootstraps and recognized she went along oh this is certain and she never fixed
properly considered the proper law which would be miller i've cited the united states versus you know the government cited united states smith both of those cases lay out this three pronged or three factor translation from what you told me there's nothing in the record to tell us whether it was or wasn't translated mister trial counsel also indicates that at one point and i believe that it's
credibility of the person who
merits because the reason to dismiss feel like the perfect is because you've been convicted of a crime well in this case not convicted but a customs officer had a reasonable basis to believe all drug trafficking and in order to arrive at the decision and we first filed this as a b s gets you back here basically through the transfer provision and nobody's saying that you don't have the ability to get here but that's a different analysis from whether or not this same issue was decided adversely to the petitioner and he's barred by the prior determination of the panel regardless of how he comes back to us the second time the real i d act does not serve as a next exception to the law  the case doctor and make a determination on the merits that the prior panel looked at the issue decided it adversely to you the first time around and therefore we should find that we have jurisdiction but deny the petition for conundrum may i ask you a question on the due process point that you the more so serious if i understand it you've got two arguments one of them being that your statutory rights were violated by  not allowing cross examination of the agent and the other is that you've got your constitutional due process rights from violated for the same reason and my question  is if i understand your theory or what the testimony was your client said what i made the statements that the agent recorded it's just that the statements  difference does it make that cross examination of the agent was not a laugh the difference is that mr jarvis never got the opportunity to review his actual statements all that's in the record is this i two thirteen well it's a somewhat speculative because we don't know exactly what the agent would have testified to if you really think that if you would get on the witness and well i wrote that in my report but i really do believe in ways that it is that what you're looking for and cross examine well mr chavis on cross would have had the opportunity to explore what was the context of this discussion i mean he admits to the immigration judge that he felt fear he was afraid that he requested to speak to an attorney considered as applying for admission rather than as being deported he has to have committed directly because if you look at the statements in the form i see thirteen itself actually said it is in his videotaped statement petitioner it emitted that he knew there was marijuana in the car that he knew it was illegal to drive it over the border and that he was paid a thousand
this this is a withholding case right this is it was over were this first opportunity in front of an asylum officer and then that as you say that that decision the credible feared determination was reviewed by and i are you saying that in any particular case it should be available to demonstrate the facts that would show it is a particular social group even if we felt in other cases that gang resistance on that record didn't qualify as a particular source of group the immigration judge's decision didn't meet the substantial evidence entered then we would argue to you that it would need to address that however here we don't believe there is such a need because the record does not comp ever gone so far as to say we cannot conceive any case anywhere it's or it's not possible categorically to if that's true however the standard for reasonable fear is whether there's a reasonable  increasing brain and power and aren't there some focus on this group as a group in order some sort of animists some sort of targeting of this group it's a  petitioner argued that he was targeted because of there's a difference between because of anon and how an out of or one central reason so in the statute it says on account of and then later it says one central reason so from targeting everyone who working recruitment and then targeting the people who refuse to join and the immigration judge can reasonably draw that inference from that testimony that it was about joining ranks and not on account of his membership in this group but it just generally and it sounds like our discussion has actually been sort of predicated on this point but i just want to make clear that the immigration judge here did not just rely on persecutors can never be claims kids and so here and i think it's evident from the immigration judge's decision that he relied on particular social group and nexus things that have been island clearly established thr
person no person shall serve as an act in office or if the president of the united states so mids a nomination of the person or the or can be ratified and the general counsel of the poor to specifically exempted from the provision if ever that says that these actions cannot be ratified so we know based on the structure of that the general counsel for the board is strongly in their decision which is still left intact even after that supreme court decision they hit judge henderson writing the majority opinion in southwest general hints there in strongly if not flat out saying this is not the son of no canning and so they sa in march has brothers that that's not this this is a single action by an officer that pretty far down the line as opposed to a final decision in order issued by any chance so for that reason it puts him on a different footing in terms of wave of old versus an obligation to the board to an issue and i would add there was a lot of reliance from opposing counsel there on the what justice thomas said in his concurring opinion that no single justice join there is nothing in the supreme court decision to support justice thomas view as the majority opinion said to the extent there's any reliance there that this is a constitutional issue that it's a separation of powers issue that was not picked up on by the majority opinion that was justice thomas writing for what's the basis for saying it's unconstitutional you think congress couldn't you said that the president can point someone who's being appointed for another spot as an actor yes it does a cartesian i'm sorry to interrupt  decided when to prosecute and then decided and then that fact and it was taken away from the war and given to the who general counsel so the general counsel now is a principal officer and again his decisions are not reviewable and that's why i want to precisely because we're talking about a decision of this prison all of these are of the united states who who sponsor is so great that nobody can review the decision nobody
event first the malice until you get to the point where you're going to be in danger of somebody else or do damage to the body and you know if you can do that maliciously without even being any consequence to police he was convicted of no more than having set fire to a door by door but there's nothing in there to show that the door was either that he was with the building referred to the concept i don't know if it could be a residence and property referring to a single physical item that is the buil assure that your conduct as a defendant is analyzed in connection with those and therefore you are given an opportunity to challenge that because of the significant consequences of a crime of violence both knowing a malicious and we know that because we look at the statute so therefore what is the vibe if that in fact would be the case if everybody uses it including the federal it's not the state is that is the winner in the burglary where cases there is a consistency in definition murder arson that those are are crimes which have a generally accepted definition and elements and therefore the legislature don't find that it is violence that the federal statute has no monetary amount and i think the generic definition of common or definition of arson makes no reference to an amount and i think the suggestion there was the grieved the reference to the contemporary generic which seemed to be an argument that we moved from the original willful and malicious burning of personal property to a new definition living under the model thirty six six thirty one a six thirty five i believe in this case that the the washington statute is a higher level of culpability and that the definition of willful lack means of the knowing knowingly done
transitional cases mean i can understand his possibly being persecuted in the west bank for all kinds of reasons but i just was curious about is how this recruitment ever come out of persecution why they would even bother with it need discretionary laith and that was the one tension let's say between the letter b position and the current position we have and i think the government has thing visiting that they can first target on focus on the hobson choice was an automatic tolling issue that we were addressing right i understand that but we've got another problem which i guess what happens if the period set by the big i j for voluntary departure has expired b sign there is no past persecution and there is no well on your future persecution the initial application the one nine hundred ninety two i believe claimed that the israeli authorities were the source of his problems the immigration judge didn't find that the respondent was patronized them and without a definition of what that meant so when hamas actually carried out the threats that oral threats he was talking about it was a matter of having people gossip about him and patronizing him he's also an individual with his mother as an only child for one thousand years his mother was a teacher his mother had enough wherewithal to have him continue all the way through school graduated from school he got an f one student visa even came to the united states go to united states you can apply for asylum there he testified that he has relatives in europe in france he has a father that is a strange from who has some status for the right to remain in guatemala his mother eventually left the west bank and came to the united states and it's my understanding based on the record she married an individual was a lawful permanent resident so when you look at the totality of this claim he's in the west bank in downtown bethlehem he actually says that he had been stopped he had been inspected there his house of them searched the numerous times for weapons inside but it was for security reasons he will stop when he went through the border checkpoints i think the worst incident was where he was asked the pain of fans other than that he was searched was never arrested that he had an opportunity for all of these years and since  political issues but my understanding based on this record is that he does not have a political position other than once you stand school and do the best you can in regards to the of the record reflecting his to this point he's been here for fourteen years and his life went on a progression which was quite normal and not one of the person who's feeling krista commission and fleeing for his life and the and therefore the government would ask th social control or political control and he continued in fact he was threatened as it states in the record just before he left the west bank and there was a threat of trying to prevent him but again the fact that threats were not carrying out it's the presence of threats threats or just another way of saying we don't want you here or join us and comply with what we want you know the thing the fact that
when they contacted and surrendered to the eye and that's because at the time that they contacted and surrendered to the ins they had not been in the country for the seven year period which sire that case involved a situation where the relief was discretionary and the court wasn't concerned over the fact that the relief was discretionary that the administration was seeking rendered can be distinguished because the aliens in that case were not eligible for suspension at the time that they made themselves known to the ins however in clearly stated that that was not the factor that was the last and the fact is that they had not given up anything in an exchange with the government as happened in  the only thing they give up is their right to remain in the country illegally and the court looked at that in detail and vote him in as angeles and long as you around and they looked at whether i gave up anything in terms of our own resources and other questions of that nature and they found there's no interest to the guilty plea would you address the most real plan and be i used its discretion in denying reopening on the grounds that they have failed to leave during the time that they were permitted under voluntary departure and the statute that  having to do with voluntary departure then we have zero six and that might make some difference again i hesitate to go into this because it hasn't been argued by the other side and hasn't been briefed and i haven't researched it i would think that if the court decided  submitted for decision
united three claims that without state action there is no claim in this case there is no possible hope of establishing state action under this circumstance starting with a public function passed as rogers recognized important and i think it goes back to if one is true in the regulations in ruby cases and is a function of the evolution of its population and the choice is a choice between institutional care and as the statue itself looks different than if a category it's institutional versus non institutional setting by contracting with the state that doesn't transform into a public entity and secondly to prove a need claim the plaintiff would have to prove that the decision was discriminated against because of his disability  act it is not enough to serve as the plane to pass here any violation of state law or officials refusal to enforce state law states a claim understand that c s j c s decision in the long  case has made no written appellate argument with respect to that count and on that basis as well the appeal with respect to that count has been waived in the decision should be affirmed there is one final issue i would know and that is that even if either one of these claims had been well pled they would still be subject to dismiss what this point for lack of subject matter section and that point here to the supreme court's decision and her state hospital first held in the under the eleventh amendment a point it cannot in federal court
any particular application or any particular determination
please the court helpful my name is kim driggers i'm here on behalf of larry cooney i'm any system public defender in eastern district of arkansas and i'm so pleased to be here with you today to explain sentence must be overturned larry cooney is sitting in a prison cell right now and for a city arkansas serving a nine year sentence when he really should be only serving two at  st but in fact with credit for the good time he's already served larry would be out he would have finished his sentence by now but larry sentencing hearing was riddled with errors and that's why he's starring in one y and i know because i was there and i'm so glad that i knew here and i can answer your questions and tell you what really happened in that courtroom about a year ago i identified several errors in the senate saying hearing in my brief but i ok with the court i really want to focus on the first two and that's the procedural and the substantive error i really want to talk about what happened in the courtroom that day i raised an argument about supervised release but i'm just going to leave that  because it's the same case your honor it's a different framework it's a different statute that's involved so i didn't prepare to put i'm glad you mention it so when mr cooney was first facing indictment he was charged and sentenced under the armed career criminal act the plea agreement spelled that out in fact the parties agreed he was an arm for a criminal that plea agreement have a waiver of an appeal it also had a waiver of collateral attack which is a twenty to fifty five so for one
so their contract says that they have when they're facing competing standards looking at state law federal law local laws case law and constitutional law it says the most stringent and arrange for him to either be released or brought to court for that order to  failure to release yeah i believe it's the situation where mr arrow told them countless times he had not been brought to or when there are affectively telling him you don't have to worry about that they're going to get extend to the legal custody of the what about thirty years bennett's example let's say over detention was thirty six months coupled with affirmative misrepresentations by course of the employe for example well you know you can talk to the marshals had and i'm giving you hypothetical here folks and i don't want you to come in and say well those are facts but let's say it's thirty six months of over detention knowing  that reason to believe him that he talked to your employees and then and was told what he says he was told why wouldn't that be a logical conclusion if that's what the jury wanted to believe one for the st time it can only that is correct your honor and did he have a responsibility to seek assistance or help and then when his failure to seek that assistance or phone calls at least be some evidence that maybe he