MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
protection of the country of her last residence because of persecution or a well founded fear of persecution on account of race religion  membership in a particular social group or political opinion the petitioner cited persecution because she was politically active and participated in the reform armed forces movement of the philippines as well as the lab on party she was detained and interrogated by military or arm the basis of the denial of the judge alternative arguments in the first place the judge said that she was not credible alternatively the judge said if she were credible he described incidents did not rise to the level of persecution on account of political opinion those circumstances or the conditions that have changed are not clear in other words the judge that's not my question my question is haven't you waived the argument so that even if the even if we were to agree with you as to the point that you did argue which was the adverse credibility finding isn't there an adequate alternative finding that as a result or change country conditions she should still be returned and since you haven't argued against that finding that's the end of the appeal i hear you saying right now i get the question i'm asking you is why didn't you brief that in the very thing you filed on appeal so that it was clearly framed for this panel and we understood that that was your what was issue that the that there is no well founded fear of future persecution that's the court should dismiss the case and there really isn't much else that you can argue he's if they've admitted that they have way that argument and they ha
court reversed and remanded we went back to a certain second sentencing hearing in january at that time we submitted affidavits from a number of friends and family members of mr johnson all of whom attested to the finding that would qualify we recommend that he be qualified for the safety valve and the first appeal was clear the judge applied the wrong standard on the second appeal it is not clear that he applied the wrong standard there are actually two references to don't believe that is the finding you made this finding he started out by saying i'm page three of the transcript that the test is page thirty one that he was convinced that the defendant was using the guns for the crime he said i'm page thirty five that the evidence shows that the senate used the guns in the crime and he said on page thirty six that followed he was following the next night circuit instructions and applying the preponderance of evidence standard counsel kept arguing for several pages finally the judge did misstate the bird that was the last thing he said i don't agree that it was his finding it was  at it is this standard does matter and it's close question as i read the and having been there at court i believe we apply the right standard factually but he misstated and i agree misstated it twice at the beginning of the end of the hearing but during the hearing when we when he was discussing the facts he said he was convinced that the defendant that's the gun as part of the crime and it's the government's view that he does qualify for this if we still will honor a plea agreement and i argued below on the factual issue that he did qualify for the safety valve and i made it to the court that was a close issue there
all he was convicted of was this five hundred grams well but but one be one point three says makes a defender responsible for all acts committed a and a bit so the fact that one was conspiracy or point here i don't see how it plays into the equation it's a question of what do you consider and he was convicted of aiding and abetting mr sun because that's all that's required and they found him guilty of that that's argument is if you're not close to the jury finding your client that was evidence three matters that went to the jury as far as the instruction was concerned argument goes make when you have the guilty verdict but then you have the boat shooting guidelines and his argument here is that well while you were convicted one of ten people hires offload marijuana for a from a ship and this is an example in application for regardless of the number of bales of marijuana that defendant offloads we're going to list of whether he knows how many bales are on the ship and regardless of whether those number of other bills are foreseeable to him he is person he is responsible under the guidelines for the entire quantity of marijuana offloaded from the ship because he personally participated in that offloading of the it was it was and there is there are other indications that edgar knows that he is there to to assist with a larger purchase of cocaine so he knows about the transaction before he arrived and we know that right there that is a five kilogram purchase and then the fact that anger is the one he says veto power over the policy of the drugs indicates that he has some authority over this transaction that can be expected to know approximately how much involves so he knows he's there to inspect the quality for the purpose of allowing his brother to purchase more than the additional one kilogram i mean to test the one i'm still having trouble with the evidence that he knew there was more than one q i mean you're making some your last statement this goes with the conclusion that didn't follow from the facts or maybe we  years and then the undercover officer also testified at trial that after a stare at the transaction he standing two and a half feet from the bag containing the four i opened packages with an unobstructed view of them and the undercover officer then specifically testified that he opened that bag more than once for both of the brothers to see and that's it page ten thirty three of the third record on appeal so the district court that's what i remembered
did you hear about the rose that grew from a crack in the concrete proving nature's laws wrong learn to walk without having feet funny it seems by keeping its dreams  color faded year after year the rose remains invisible its beauty undermine its struggle nor good people forget about learn that it will not be taken without a fight you learn of what it has endured to be where it is that may come as a surprise to the ones that had doubts when you realize the rose is not going away you will regret and fail to about us is we live in the moment we don't win the game we win the snap big play next play we embrace glory in the deep we learn from repetition that there is no friday night without saturday sunday monday tuesday wednesday or thursday if there is no team work without family no trust without accountability do your job our next play is better than your last play are bright and when the pain of the chief minister reached there there comes a time when you need to learn to walk without feet we the rose that has grown from a crack in the concrete we have kept our dreams and breathe fresh air
the pleasure of presenting paces three faces before this court in the past and during those times i've also observed attorneys present their case and one thing me during those experiences and then is that regardless of the pay that is that for the court the court has an absolute command of not only of the law but especially the facts to support that we're seeing that there is no test morning whatsoever that mr annan said any notice of the water at the bottom of the stairs our position is simple mr adams took  words while they were still there were just one or two not because what happened was after when you found out that was on sunday april first since you were the feeling
court did not abuse its discretion in finding no th amendment violation here because as the court found the defendant caused the delays as just under held the chief judge underhill specifically found the record showed that the defense defendant did not want a speedy trial but rather took steps to repeatedly delay his trial he terminated his st four lawyers usually when trial was imminent april twenty seven to two thousand and seventeen he pushed the rd lawyer out after a make detailed findings in this respect the record also shows that the defendant engaged in prolific motion practice and either moved or consented to twenty plus continuance or luck that were in large amounts secondly there was no court and the government to constantly react to his dilatory tactics if you're honest have no other questions the government will rely on the nd and rd points the government respectfully cements that the gascon case from two thousand
mr kennedy mr kennedy no mr schumer  mrs feinstein  kerry every center voted as any senator wished changes or vote were thirty eight voting an infirmity of a sixty five sixty two voting in the negative amendment number four one nine six is not agreed to there are now two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the number four one nine one as modified to yield time to get good order in a chamber plays who had order in the chamber please order in the chamber who enter from arizona mr president last year this amendment received fifty six votes democratic and republican votes it was then in the form of a motion to instruct conferees but the provisions are the same this is the rip the  amendment on the state tax that has a top rate not to exceed thirty five percent and it has a five million dollar exemption for each spouse for a total of ten million dollars this amendment is endorsed by groups small business groups like the n f i b and by other pro estate tax reform groups i would hope that my colleagues would agree that it is a way to send a very strong signal through the budget process that we are serious about reforming the estate tax this year but urge my colleagues to support the amendment  in colorado chamber come to order please as president i would urge my colleagues to vote against my friend from arizona's amendment because at the end of the day it doesn't hold up to the principle of fiscal responsibility all that by all of my friends a man that will do here is to continue to make the mountain of debt bigger and bigger and bigger at the mound of debt that's already at ten trillion dollars and going beyond the pay go rules that we have here in this chamber are important for us to maintain if we are going to be fiscally responsible stewards of america's financial treasure and so i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the kyl amendment it is not paid for the remaining ones seventeen second center thank you i appreciate my colleagues the question of course is what taxes were going to raise in order to provide tax relief here and i just don't think it's realistic to expect that we're going to raise taxes and i certainly don't expect that we would be reducing spending so for serious about it we do need to send a signal through this amendment that we want to reform the estate time's expired at amazon and i met on around twenty three seconds twenty three seconds now to respond to my friend from arizona that at the end of the day if we're going to be fiscally responsible here in the united states senate we have to pay for those things that are creating this bout of debt we are either serious about paying down the debt of this country and getting a handle on the fiscal responsibility the last eight years or we're not senator conrad has been right in terms of leading us on a peg already has expired
i rather doubt that tonight's report is really gotten to yet oh you're against quacks all right i imagine but you may be slightly amused to to think that anyone could be taken in by such fantastic pitches what you're about to see is not an experience along that line would you mind telling us about it i just lost my son on the list strange lady i never had seen oh you know who she was for some reason she heard about me losing my son and wished to sympathize with me well when she come in the house she began talking about cancer said she knew all about it she was well acquainted with cancer and she could tell a friend who had cancer you've got cancer do i can do that in ten days so took me in the kitchen and put to say a bone and how did you know it was cancer tell you all he said he knew cancer he could tell you chan  and how did the treatment finally terminate well i decided to quit i got to suffer and so i quit and it healed up what kind of a money arrangement that you have with him he said was ten dollars i  and how much did you pay him altogether pay him thirty dollars altogether other than the terrible loss the loss of your weather any other serious effects yeah right i lost a lot of my hearing but i couldn't hear very good as i did god you got away from before it was too late and i want to wish you all good luck very lucky thank you so you see what i mean no lie no distortion no injury to another bothers the quack of a victim dies there are plenty more where you came from i have your name please this is the cassidy and your age please sixty two your occupation imo plato and the other lady must run it for speaking about the lady rooms where yes i am you nine months had you been to a medical doctor about it yesterday and what did he say they say it was cancer he did not but this woman who came to the house the stranger knew immediately that you had cancer absolutely did she tell you how she knew well  mrs cassidy thank you very much you're welcome it isn't complicated to avoid quacks no competent medical man is ashamed of his qualifications of his on the level he'll be happy to tell you what schools he attended what degree is he ho in professional societies he belongs to and you don't have to take his word for it either call one of the societies e mentions confirm his membership and if you're still in doubt call your state board of medical examiners and if anybody tries to sidetrack you tell them it's a matter of life and death and final message from the sponsors of confidential file
child screaming why should a disturbance just because we happen to be there to hear it there are children suffering everywhere earth so everywhere why do these things disturb us because they happen in our prosperous city of st louis why should there be so many who need help in st louis and one nine hundred fifty nine hands like smile will not obey the mind cannot control it's hard to make yourself understood she cannot do without help without love without training many of the simplest things every child takes for granted never even thinks about with care money professional training with a new technique there is hope for the victims of cerebral palsy without these things the world is just too much individual disaster
hi i'm jill jones with s t m and i'm here at the north branch of the zambrano river where at the noble family farm farm on wheels where they produce grass fed beef let's go talk to linda noble and find out why this kind of beef is so good for you for you it comes from a local family farm in the make up threes are as high as an ocean fish which makes it very healthy for you and that and the other important part is that they'll make a threesome make a successor at the same level they're in balance alone our bodies can use them better acid which is the c l a and the bee is very high as well ok great all great health benefits and do you use any antibiotics which you're not we're certified organic farms so we can't use antibiotics ok and the because they're out on the grass and that do not need the antibiotics because they have a very healthy immune system or if they can does that have an impact on your family yes we don't get sick it's often not household and i know the people that eat off of our truck in the winter they say that they find the same thing that their health benefits are wonderful and so your cattle are out in nature all the time in the sunshine and in the grass they're not grain fed at all they are not grain fed they are hundred percent grass fed we finished our beef on the green grass and where do you get your stock for your for your herd well we have some brew cows and then we have calves of course that we raise and then we also have some local farmers that we buy the young stock from the when they were little and then we raised them up so one of the scene is a delicious oh it's just gorgeous here the sun is shining the cows are out in the pasture is this really what makes them so healthy yes on the green grass is just the biggest part of it you know and not being packed up tight they don't have the stress level and they're very easy could see out there very content yeah they look great and this water source this natural water source so they drinking right from the stream yes they are so everything's really coming from nature for them yes you're rotating pastures and they just move around  nutrition and your family to organic and grass fed beef and other organic produce we started in one thousand nine hundred eight grazing and then in the early ninety's we went to certify organic because of my own health reasons i got lines disease and for me i needed to eat more healthy yet and so we went to certified organic on our entire farm and so where do you get your produce if you're not producing a i imagine you have a garden in the summertime but where do you get the rest of your produce what i don't get from my own garden i buy at the st paul farmer's market because there are some wonderful vendors there that have wonderful products and i can't do everything so i found that it's a nice fit for us and it's like a community for me there with all the other vendors and we buy from them and they buy from us and so we all eat healthier well it's a it's a beautiful farm and we're so grateful that you had us out here and if you come to the st paul farmer's market you can meet london and her family and try some of their grass
appeal however mr sparkman's case a slightly different and he has a codefendant who was sentenced after the st step was an act that could have been and was sentenced about a year and a half after mr a unique situation i was going to find any other cases where this occurred where you have co defendants where one gets the benefit of the new law while the other one does not especially in a situation like this were not mandated by the mandatory minimum and even the government when it argued against the codefendant sentence after your are day acknowledged that mr sparkman was far less involved in these crimes than the codefendant after your error didn't affect a substantial right and so you know he didn't at the end of the day wasn't able to show plain error but regardless this argument wasn't raised at the time it wasn't part of the re manty he didn't make it so i'm not sure why it's before us now are our position is that with the united states versus davis supreme court case that's an intervening legal authority that would relax the normal waiver rules it is recognized was not at issue was not brought up at any time prior however with united states daters which came about after his sentencing so our position of that is an intervening legal authority that allows that avoids the waiver require plain language or the same plain language and a different provision of the st act but using identical language the plain language indicates that the next congress intended for these provisions of t subsequent proceedings the status of the sentence at the conclusion of such proceedings none of that really applies to the question of whether the sentence was actually imposed the sentence is i mean there's no there's really no way to understand imposed preprint oust actually could be a little bit off in the sense that pronounced often means the oral pronouncement at the time of the sentencing which is normally what's considered to be the sentencing even though the written judgment follows but nevertheless the we're trying now so many may focus a little bit on the oral pronouncing or that were statement of the son but the imposition of the sentence is clearly done sentencings regardless of what happened in the past it i mean there really honestly you could should you could come up with ten different ways to to voice daisy and chanter the meaning that that that the defendant attempt to attribute to this language and all of those were actions open to congress but trying wrists elected to focus on defendants who are being sentenced for the st time language is what we need to go on that's that's the standard that's applied in every case and i don't i don't think that analyzing words that are not used in the statute and circumstances that are not addressed in the statute is a fair ray to review the language that's before the court
of at least the front let's read the other two aside for a moment what what on this record in final time to say he is in control of the customers on i don't i don't think it's the premise of your argument i thought was that the the i am a can be changed and you said it was and then you're read at a stroke of his pen so that's the issue i'm focusing on what shows he is in control
come and dance or not you know when you show up and have a little extra cash tip the bartenders you know that sort of thing they like that anyway it's open daily so that's why i called it open to
the court counsel the respondent chills in federal public defender representing the petitioner appellant as this court is aware there was some late breaking exciting news in this case and that was that on tuesday jurisdiction must be considered in deciding who you are and i guess the way that i would address an argument that if the courts request is if he was not treated as a second or successive the titian by the district court well that's certainly true so the question is whether in this respect the district court was right you are unwilling to concede and in this particular respect with respect to it not being a six assessment petition that we believe the district court was correct with respect to the court's  that it would not reach the merits of the petition if it were deemed untimely my understanding of the circuits case law is that for the court there in connection with addressing that the merits determine whether some time ago i took a i understand i said what i'll do here initially is then i will address the procedural arguments for equitable in it's our position your honor that the district court abused its discretion when they found that petitioners mental condition or other deficiencies were extraordinary circumstances that warranted equitable to one of the one year filing limitation mental illness antisocial personality disorder cognitive limitations and inability to effectively communicate with and relate to others he's a literate he also does not have sufficient funds so that determination that's not a sixth amendment in the finding of fact by the state court that is conclusive under twenty two fifty forty eight i must go into the wrong by clear and convincing evidence of who applied a standard at odds with the mental competency standard established by the green court in cases like missouri versus euro and d i would also note your honor that in looking at this issue the district court also appeared before it extensive documentation relating to the time frame not just when he was found to be fi and didn't get it the numerous limitations that he experienced of which his mental competence is a component but then that's compounded by a number of other circumstances that it's our belief make this a unique available to the court its conclusion that he did act with equitable cooling was inappropriate in this case it is our position that that was clearly erroneous i would reserve the remainder of my extraordinary circumstances over this extremely long period that he told the easiest ways to work back from the date of the filing of the second petition because there was more than a year between that petition and petition so he would need some kind of equitable towing argument for that period and he hasn't even made one so that's an easy way to resolve it even if the court were to conclude that somehow the filing date of the first petition is somehow the relevant date the district court did not abuse its discretion