MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that there is an agenda that begins on one ninety eight do you have a list of all these things that happened and interfered with regard to the particular event and in mine which was what happened to mr no in september of two thousand and one after a conference that related to chernobyl that that whole thing began trying to well one and goes into tulips at the same time there's reference can see that there's a political opinion aspect to this and this is this is this the handling of the the country background reports and also the church comes off as being sought peddling becomes comparing well things that all that but the the medical report in full two thousand and one of the and the and and and other matters and the government had no objection on page fifty nine of the administrative record the government had no objection not nowhere was it referred to in any kind of discussion about the credibility anyway i'd like to see the balance or time for yes i  had not looked at it he was never asked at the hearing what can you explain his inconsistency you know but he was actually the i actually about seven of occasions actually interjected during direct examination and started questioning the witness as to the situations that occurred when he was back that he was going to have they had an internal passport that identified him and then he then he testified that the nationalists or the militia had actually asked him to identify those whom were jewish in the community who were harmed when g found that odd based on the fact that there were journal passport documents that would be able to to locate such individuals things like that of the i j a found were inconsistent with what he should have listed on the asylum application which were of the fact that he was actually arrested and beaten based before the immigration before the i g hearing he provides supplemental information in the supplemental declaration i think in two different instances or at least one and but nonetheless the i j a just looks at what was contained in the application and that along digest its before and looking as as trier of fact looking at everything it is getting its internal inconsistencies whether or not and when he questioned him especially about i know it's not central to the claim that he made about the actual monies and how we rendered them the testimony was ever they are they can be they can be very general and they can go into more detail however even the petitioner himself had said in the testimony when you came to united states for the first time back in two thousand and one with his girlfriend he had no intention of leaving the country he had no intention of actually filing for asylum and most of these
just drop housekeeping question yet supposing we agree with you as to the summary judgment do we need to address the damages arguments here are i think it would be worth reminding the district  where the claim was directed to something you know it was the same as the infringing product and we said nonetheless even though the claim is directed to the product because  of why we said over and over again if you're going to pick that as the base you have to be a provisional and you're going to do the apportionment exercise through that rate and  we're going to scrutinize that and here what i saw when i read expert's report was something that was more on a qualitative level of how nice it is there have improved cut quality and there are advantages that having improved quality and then all of a sudden abracadabra out of a hat comes the five percent number and so that that i'm telling you who really concerned me and worried me about wasn't was there more than one patent involved in the settlement i think really that at three point two five percent was on any patents that was it was used by staff so that is a very specific they actually will say something like i'm going to settle this and then i'm going to the other of these different factors to explain how i go up a little or go down a little and come up with what is my alternate suggested number but there was nothing really good because there's all this evidence to support it but i think what we're supposed to analyze is methodology and the question is whether the methodology whether it can even tell what that is what all she's down his list all the dirty pacific factors and say
a pack of black oak and we're just moments away from going to post and we're just moments away so all i can tell you is that if you didn't call yet you could be in jeopardy of getting out i will lock you out if you don't at all right now your last chance because we are past there must be a lot of problems going  twenty two twenty four twenty six a steady thirty four thirty forty four forty fifty two fifty six around fifty three hey spring time must be a common track conditions are excellent out of pitcher park tonight and the track is fast so that's it we're going to go with fifty eight players then ok
and they pointed out that someone almost jokingly i think there's lots of places that have mice and the fact that there are millions of cats in the united states and finding homes goes to show that a mouse being in a house trailer sometime isn't indicative of nine years people have more than one home we might live in portland but have a home at the coast or a home at the mountains right home on the street and when it comes to rattle life first been somewhat of a change in terms of raising children or children isolated living on farms  and i don't think there's evidence of poverty but there is evidence that these people came from rural mexico and worked outdoors or working in an agricultural setting it's which is actually separate from his father's it was guided over five hundred thousand dollars up in the west hills however the value of the harm you have to take a look at was the mortgage that's involved in the home as well equity in the home dollars the form that we have here is immediately adjacent to the area the search took place so it's the defendant's position it's within the crucial each of the home and we can look at the five four factors excuse me in the in the dunn decision to defendant's father testified that during the summer he was there on one occasion and this search took place in october now the judge read and sitting directly below this court took two days to hear these witness cruelest was used for marijuana in one case methamphetamine another case and this quarter there was no fourth amendment protection because those of us who believe in property rights are amazed that your statement that the prosperous laws only
literally no cases that are out of decided that twork claims should be treated differently to a contract and there's no rational reason why they should be if you think about merrill what happened to merrill it is an agent of the f c i see made a representation about whether it would be insured and the representation proved to be inaccurate and the plaintiff made a claim claim had never made a claim for negligent misrepresentation in addition to the contract claims he brought there's nothing in maryland much you very much for that mr sharon and i think you have a minute or so
it no one got on the stand and said ok
and so it doesn't matter that the reason the police were out was not because their search was late or not because they have located late but because one of the suspects they now have probable cause to arrest both of them time bell or when his or her were out of the world that is the fact that he's not really in those three minutes but he also was not sitting there on the bad just waiting for the police return to reach time he was in fact hiding in the ceiling tile and it appears that the police that returned faster than he was offender was known to carry that would potentially put everyone in the hotel at risk to leave on guided weapons and a ceiling would be a dangerous condition yes well there's if an officer has forty one years of experience that tells him that contraband including weapons may be concealed and movable ceiling tiles
procedure doesn't happen overnight people aren't racing back to the courts to withdraw their guilty pleas they may fear for what's right if they get their wish they may turn out to be worse and that may be a fact mr peck owners face if you go west around by the sea change
spring that i guess not necessarily federal and i'm thinking federal i go back yard to maybe the difference between bank robbery and thousand that are larceny both of them involve a loss of money and both of them could involve a big loss of money but why is it that society thinks that bribery is much worse then and maybe what ken lay is accused of doing with enron or any of these other corporate raiders it's because of that because of the possibility that you're talking about burglary of an uninhabited dwelling where for you there's no there has to be nobody in that house in order to be and that has to be the intention is it then that's very different but when you get a stand in a case of a burglary the government has to prove the entry they have to prove this will force the entry into the house and so that's really the distinction that i'm hoping that this part would draw in analyz newsletter i have a gun i'm going to be at your doorstep and i'm going to break into your house and kill you the government wouldn't nest of necessarily have to prove the threat of physical force because is accurate in fifteen men of whether or not that's correct to injure a person of another would constitute a crime of violence which constitutes an element that has threatened use physical force and if you look at the language itself to injure implies some sort of physical force it is different from causing an injury to if the element had been and the government merely needs to prove that the threat is to
leave indonesia and in the course of that demonstration they burned his coffee shop he ran out of this coffee shop and as he was running out of his coffee shop he was beaten in the back of the steps by people who are young he still chinese hard time with and you just put your finger on it is that it's not the governments out there burning houses we don't have the best was like we did in nicaragua and since our door the government shooting people so how do we analyzed the factual situation next question is is the governments of indonesia unable or unwilling to just stop that violence and that's a key to me to tell me specifically in their record that would be the substantial evidence of
therefore it needs simple rules some of those simple rules are now in social security rulings which are binding one rule states that if a claimant reaches step forth the claimant is disabled unless the climate can work eight hours a day five days a week are ninety nine p which both refer to the full time work rule they all generate in its formal finding stated that mr ripley was limited to seven hours of work in an eight hour day that corresponds to the try to discussion of the medical finding of disability if there's any ambiguity in the judge's decision it's unclear whether or not the judges actually apply their will when the court should reverse in re me and to the administration for further clarification of facts findings on this  not only does this court's decision in johnson require persuasive evidence from the vocational expert also the social security's own rules to social security really zero zero four p requires a reasonable explanation but vocational expert addressed by the a feel better about the record we have we have finding number seven on page fifty seven of the records which don't have the there's a little bit of an ambiguity that looks like it could be read two ways is there other evidence here that the a l j understood that  somebody who can perform sedentary work would be able to sit usually six hours and stand and walk for approximately two adding up to a clue that the inference can be made from the record that he was finding that he could perform full time work he there perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods so you know if he had an inability to perform this whether or not there would be any work still when he's talking at that point of discussion with a vocational expert and i'm reading at the bottom of on their faces the commissioners also made a new argument to the hypothetical question at page two fifty two shows that it was really asking about full time work but the actual hypothetical question and page fifty one upon which t on the court record the court could refer to the own finding that can work seven hours an eight hour day and the commissioner concedes this would be consistent with a finding a disability
time goes by quickly when you're are having fun but also when you're working hard most this past year was really fun passed quickly for you because of your hard work you produce excellent work product for not practitioner i wish you the best of luck in the featuring i know now that before which stands a man you know the score or represent well the legal profession and that will do well  there's no case the other way that says we're not going to look at this because you haven't shown an individual element that's not a test and it wouldn't work you're not going to find peter jennings on the news talking about a nine point ask for your advice let's go back to the claim construction or  which we say and numerous other cases and none of the cases that office cited you this morning all to the contrary besides the standard that they are articulating is not one that is workable in practice they seem to be articulating some kind of gist of invention or point of novelty argument but they don't tell the court how you're supposed to pick which features are important for purposes of commercials essentially they can just take one of them you present evidence that you have a product that board ruled that i was incorrect as a matter of law and now i understand that marsh is trying to cobble together some evidence on appeal to try to satisfy this court first of all ever to do that it was waived it's too late because it didn't prove the case to the board and second of all fundamentally  if the patent she wishes to rely on secondary considerations the patent he has an obligation to come forward with the chilean aspects of evidence that i mentioned at the beginning which is evidence that the products work personally successful and if they the only that there are in most of the claims instruction issues in this case are waived because they were not preserved not only did bosh that instruction when talking about that immersion program instruction and then there's more than that because the board's final written decisions specifically make a finding that the parties have agreed on the instructions as stated in the decision on institution there was no that at least would have would have made this our case from new york the waiver for sure i think the board would have to decide whether that is sufficient to preserve an argument at the trial stage and it would be a matter for the board's discretion which this court would review for it's but we're not there here we ha unlike in the prior art systems which the patent criticizes where the clinician waits for the patient to do something either come into the emergency room or hand in most recent medical that up the system here just like the tone of the system allows the c you know it's an excellent repor
review there's no basis for it there's no way to determine what factors what week that the protocol board or the governor against any particular factor in determining whether or not we go we have to decide concrete cases we can't just say in the currently penn cruelty council i understand at that he might not get out of the governor intervenes and applies the hotel california rule that he can't get out right  board would be moot because they all have already said he gets out so you might have a different case challenging the governor's decision and the record on that but i'm still  missile is to tell us why this case is not moot you can't make out that if you can't show us that there is a concrete controversy here i can assure you this case will be gone before the so and so this is this is your job god if you're asking me can i give you a new reason why as to this particular case why wouldn't the moot because of the grant and this is the only case we are concerned with your mother was i think some other client here i think and i say what happen capable of repetition but a fading review because if the governor gives and says no to the to the thrall and your client has to start over and you'd have the same issue concerned we have a complete new hearing which is subject to review by the governor so assuming without conceding the governor is going to reverse that decision of the board that becomes a completely different case that's not going to in any way relate back to any of the issues in the two thousand that my understanding is once the board's decision is final it's final with respect to the board and it's in the hands of the governor after couldn't run it back to the board and say i want you to make additional findings on the following issues i'm not
about mr bradford so is there any way to put that together to find that there really was a finding of reason reasonable suspicion or is that lacking and it doesn't
bullets mr crampton was charged in a two count indictment twenty four bullets and one count and fifteen bullets on the other counts in violation of eighteen u s c nine twenty two g among other motions we filed a motion to dismiss  eighteen u s c nine twenty one a twenty to mean you can possess any firearm but that's not what we have here we have possession of ammunition and this is all contained within chapter forty four of u not interesting the judge that's exactly the eighth circuit thought was very clear in the case of the united states is versus the route a a form that very same conclusion but our case our circuit united states versus miller is right on point i would definitely suggest in miller's a wonderful case for us this individual had been convicted in oregon he was charged in federal court with the same statute he was charged with two counts and  i might just point out that you know these laws come from chapter forty four of the of u s c the firearms chapter and there is no interchange of ammunition and firearms crime of violence that the statute mr crampton was convicted of or ask one sixty six to seven who i would respectfully suggest is too broad it can be red in a fashion that a based upon leopold vs passed prop the conviction the fake or conviction cannot be deemed a crime of violence remind us did the oregon restoration of rights apply to and all firearms of any kind no no i don't believe that a person convicted of a felony in oregon  pigeonhole for the federal fact you fill in the category of people who can't have anything the federal statute says you can't have not according to ninth circuit a flawed eyes and that's the one that's before karen thompson dealt with that memory location that's the issue that takes care of the first question in fact was mr fountain convicted of some felons in this case couple drug dealing cases in the legal possession the shotgun pace the the argument that there was no means ri out of the seventh circuit at four thirty seven fed thirty six sixteen in the united states versus wilson were thirty seven for six sixteen in the pages that were interested in  restoration of civil rights and makes my arguments better than i'll make them and that's eighty six eighteen through six one thing essence and wilson is that they point out that once you decide that he has a felony conviction and first and civil rights have been restored then you that it is perfectly appropriate for the government to prosecuting under eighteen united states code nine twenty two g one and that's where we ended up that's where judge hogan end up in making his ruling and denying  now mr fredericks wants to make policy argument saying gee whiz it's not fair that my client and legally care have ammo under state law they can't do it under federal law well the wilson case makes that very strong argument on the page which i need to read i think it says we start with a fairly self evident point that federal law without reference the law any other jurisdiction makes it a crime for a convicted felon possession ammunition and goes on to say it is irrelevant in this case wisconsin versus france they submitted
also how much of it so i ask him mention the trash is predominantly something and we wanted to know what that was so that was the primary goal and then it was also important on the schools except for the high school so we have you have no clue what's happening at the high school so we just sort of didn't include that in this scenario so in all we have t so in conclusion celine we figured that if we practice composting and donating all the and open and i need in food those food pantries or any of the charity then and also if we improve and also a big cost saving for the school in terms of fewer that filing and also fewer number of banks that are going to be used for dispersing the cash and finally i mean when you do
that should be told in that time when they arrested him until the time period in which they produced the video why would you require more a matter of then you were fired at least police officers who specifically when told this piece of asking whether there were any other circumstances after dinner because it came out of jail and he has not he's had the opportunity to put forward any circumstances and of the district court he did not do that he has had the