MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
recognizing that the most reliable indicators that intent is the statutory language i acknowledge that to do so this poor must read jack the convoluted rationale adopted by custody but here are the provisions that the coeur is going to have those against you to issue that you come back right in this case they were fairly restrictive that doesn't render the defendant
case this is the second time that the district court granted a motion for summary judgment against dr bass by refusing to follow clear ninth circuit law judge because of the unusual circumstances presented well if you if you are right or correct and it goes back to judge real what happens that it goes to trial on the bad faith aspect of the case here's our concern with no no no i believe you purchase a disability policy one time and the policy coverage you just based on the terms of the policy in this case the t if you're in a situation where the insurance company can't change a thing from year to year and you're quite unclear on the what circumstances are actually more like a policy that is when you're there you just like your car policy or you or any any other like policy me all of the terms are set out at the time you purchased the policy and i don't know when fact that there are any sections to for the premium being in place sometimes the policy holder has the right to increase the monthly benefit which would then of course increase the probability that that's true but i think either way not possibly that everything is set up front if the show's company you're telling me cannot change a premium three she transferred ten percent of the interest in the company to her son alive at the time he commenced working for the corporation and between one thousand ninety three nights in ninety eight as part of his compensation package each year he received an vishal ten percent so th i agree there's we do connect up the department of labor regulation and canada that obviously i'm confused on that i'm unsure how that works sure you can't tell me relies on two pieces of items authority for the general statement that owners of the corporation cannot do not fall within the definition of illinois right the first is the regulation itself and the language of the regulation it does not support the general statement of law that kennedy states that kennedy simply overstates what the regulation provides the second is the schwartz recorded face in the third circuit that case also doesn't support the agree or kennedy is not binding in the circuit because it's not the only consistent ruling from the circuit in reno in ri net which is the ninth circuit case as well comes out the exact opposite d once again your honor i don't believe the kennedy's controlling primarily because the language of the plane is relying on is not the primary holding in the case i understand and agree with the court the settlement that it was necessary underpinning to  turns out that we consider the killing to be controlling sure newark lives position to the judge real has done absolutely nothing improper and appropriate that would indicate an exceptional circumstance justifying the transfer of the case to another judge aerospace
attorney is a little bit read that the reporter does you can almost see the gears turning in the rest mind you know geez do i really want to go down this road and then conclude the draft at the end of the say are actually murphy was filling a gap that hard an something he had complete to the best of his whatever ability or something like that the defense ratchets on and says ah you know there's a gap in his knowledge but there's nothing in the record about that gap is the extent of the gap at in significant thank you
court order by mcmahon is not an issue in the matters at the bar at issue is whether the order has to be put to a jury of twelve dollars and six dollars in order to be filing in order to fire to determine the facts of the matter is going to the bar in the federal district court it appears as though only a jury can successfully challenge that finding of facts with regard to the mcmahon order what i need is for the appellate court conall a tree and purslow come the constitution states there's a right to trial evidence by a jury of twelve this is already evidence that the boy with regard to the matter and i think that only one conclusion can be drawn by the
issues the first issue is whether the substantial evidence supports one of the ovation appeals finding or the immigration judges finding that  it's it's got to be page of the record for the extra steps fifty four or page six of this document there is a section two in title homosexuals and there's two paragraphs basically summarizing the theory that the no evidence that systematic official persecution of homosexuals exists the next part of that sentence it's in the same sentence that says that violence against homosexuals is not uncommon and so i think that that done talking about  just because the immigration judge didn't believe that they had done so doesn't mean that he was correct and so i think that that's that's that's a different standard than saying it would compel the conclusion i don't think you need to meet that standard to prevail on a motion to reopen an abuse of discretion correct right i agree but whatever the standard is i mean frankly we believe that whether that you know well whatever the standard to the presumption that they had a well founded fear of persecution and that they could use thousands more likely than not that they would be persecuted they never separately it was indicated that they had shown that it was more likely than not that motion to reopen they say here's this document what they say was that we document is it doesn't rebut the presumption of past persecution they don't argue they don't state in the document doesn't show that in fact there was anything different in that document which would have changed mentions others in his text though it's really not pressed him weigh them but i say it's like you're your argument you're saying that he didn't argue it well enough or he didn't argue enough of an even though he argue just i don't think just by dropping a footnote saying another document could have been introduced to be sufficient to meet was not a requirement for anything else and i think the board did not have to address any of this even though the board strong talk that's when the country conditions evidence say which they did all they are going to expect the document was it didn't show that the country conditions had changed such to rebut the presumption of past persecution they did not argue in here that the document actually showed that they had a wel on another occasion he was stripped of his clothes he was told to perform oral sex on a police officer and other occasions he was sexually harassed by coworkers because of the sexual orientation and he finally left the country because he was a close friend of his
productivity so it had some words that marked limitation why they made it or how many of the person would be unable to perform that ten percent of the time to fifteen percent describe the kind of things you know the kind of work that this person could do and one of the words that i think even the l jane comes up with somebody does the word and it's kind of the opposite of being able to concentrate well i example or through setting you know a goal of you have to do x number operations per hour or something but it's the law word and that's the problem their interpretation the regulations only when it's convenient for the decision to be upheld and unfortunately that seems to be common case state agency doctor uk consultative examiner anything anywhere from what's going on in generator i we can call it light moderate heavy intense you know whatever you want what are you trying to tell people about this person and how are you getting that across because some jobs do require the ability to focus intensely on a problem for a sustained period of time other jobs maybe you can watch a movie at the same time as you're doing it and you're just you know throwing a few things in a bag and throwing a few things the next bagger or what have you and there were lots of things in between but but how do you how can we be sure that with mr saunders who seems to have scold him for usurping the able jay's roles as the able chase frequently scold medical professionals who are going beyond the description of the medical situation and moving into the vocational a residual functional capacity that accounted for their opinions just a commissioner relying on the fact that mr saunders seems to be capable of working the part time job failed to consider that she considered that he case she didn't say he can keep doing that because he did say he had some trouble adapting to those types of changes but that he can do a simpler job and i would just like to say that the group's three most recent decisions on this issue the bur month some days he isn't in his deal activities reported noted that he has two or three per month he needs to have less stress on those days he should be able to adjust his work demands and changes work
control over the general language that you're talking about incorporating the fourteenth
attorney and we say that it's permissible for the fact finder to look at the discrepancies and use that as the basis for an adverse credibility determination is it your position that immigration cases are different because at the time and counsel petitioner prepares an asylum application that he can't possibly know the ramifications of the law and therefore it's not fair for the immigration judge to at the differences you know your honor we say that that is one factor that needs to be considered by the judge but not the only factor so that it is permissible for the judge to look at the differences between what was said in the application even though the petitioner didn't the deportation proceedings we argue that the judge erred when she ignored the testimony which she even the judge herself considered it's consistent ignored country background documentation release can be established based on testimony alone and where the record things extensive testimony regarding past torture degrading treatment by the government actors countless country conditions documents establishing mass violations those conditions were changed or or just didn't believe her the record has no indication whether the judge well in fact the only only indication on the record is that the judge past persecution however we're not talking about a minor inconsistency here we are talking about interest by an application whoever throws it out she left out the most significant fact the basis of her claim the one m i'm just trying to figure out what i'm looking at here i'm looking at the i five thirty nine and i was maybe nineteen
that's a fish tale that begins like most good early in the morning imported to america in the one thousand nine hundred as a few they were brought from egypt to europe in the thirteenth century hundreds of years before that the chinese bred them for color variation yes goldfish koyo are the same species of fish they are a valuable food fish because of their remarkable ability to adapt  it turns out that this invasive species isn't truly good for minnesota lynx when they feed they they go down to the sediment in and the bottom of the lake and they look for small invertebrates that they eat  by doing that they actually stir up a lot of nutrients and a lot of sediment into the water and and that actually opens up a lot of nutrients that algae will thrive on and actually what happens that it decreases water quality and clarity and then fish and other plants that are native here have a hard time surviving because they're getting shaded out and it's really a tough place for native fish and plants to live because the water's been marked out by by the behavior in the feeding behavior of population out here you can actually pull them out in one big net pool instead of doing it one by one in the summer we know that there's a an aggregation of adult carp just off this direction and we've got commercial fishermen of come in with  a large say nets that they're going to put in and stretch out around the group underneath the ice using you know a series of holes and submarines to pull the edge of the net and stretch it out and then when they get to the corners they're going to take their corners of the net and bring it around so they can hold in the the big group of adult car within the ne collaboration with the university of minnesota is going to really help us start to tackle some of the water quality issues in a change investigate learn about behavior patterns  data and do research and in particular today we're standing fish and bringing in the carp as part of their multi year study their life's patterns of carbon and how they're impacting water the two ends of the net are retreat and the next begins to lo commercial fishermen want to sell the fish for a profit and to carry on a traditional harvest that some of their fathers and grandfathers carried on they do come in the groups during the winter so if you want to hit a big portion of the population out here you can actually pull them out in one big net pole instead of  take fish are measured and sampled comparing this to last summer's day they can provide fallible clues to the fish's life cycle
not about whether the right to keep and bear arms is confined to the home under that is not our position and this court certainly need not adopt that position through our favor here and apparent to the regime it has been challenged and that's because as substantial evidence than it would apply to decisions by administrative agencies because it's a legislature reflecting the will of the people so and sure to be a way to test the government  the court to uphold the law under intermediate scrutiny
say we can only do this under these circumstances as some general here at the authority that applies to other courts trump the rules now that's what he seems to be taking
persecution on the part of the hospital now assuming that and that appears to be our case well after that so then there was past persecution here the voice said no there was any past persecution but if that's  happened there was insufficient direct evidence presented that it happened and there was insufficient evidence to corroborate that it happened he was incredibles hi jason as he's incredible so we don't believe that you ever have you that's rect
theory and your argument perhaps you didn't when you just made a new argument about it doesn't that take us right back to where we started so we're back to big bird closed circuit president even if we consider this argument the government's theory of liability with respect to mr hall was that he committed one or war of the illegal out of the elements of a hobbs act of and or that he aided and abetted others in the commission of those of those elements convicted how that robbery without any personal e using threatening or attempting the use of physical force but the supreme court in rosemont explained why that doesn't matter what they said is that all who share in the overall crimes execution have equal responsibility whatever may have been there is a different vision of labor between sure more confederates us has no significant strategy of you take that element i'll take robbery is not a separate crime it is not a different crime it is a means of committing hobbs and rockery and i think this court really explained that quite well and garcia analogizing to the supreme court's decision in shatt versus doesn't have to be unanimous even though i'll go there are different things that need to be proven and under you know if the government is prosecuting this under a felony murder theory versus a premeditated murder theory there are different things that need to be convictions are invalid because the security probably found him guilty under a pinkerton theory and pinkerton doesn't require that the that the defendant henry himself that he personally use attempt at our threatens physical force and what this court said and henry is that doesn't matter because armed bank robbery is a crime of violence and so whether it's a pinkerton theory or any aiding and abetting theory or you know whatever theory the offense is a crime of violence and so i think the reason even though my friend on the other side is correct that henry was primarily about pink or extend that reasoning of pinkerton saying that it doesn't matter that the prove is that they the offense was committed by someone i mean that is one of the things that has to be proven that was an actual robbery was committed it so to the extent that aiding and abetting has separate elements one of those elements charge aiding abetting and if aiding and abetting categorically cannot be a private island and if we're not allowed to look at what the defendant actually did which is kind of the fundamental thing about the categorical analysis we only look at the that i i think this court gaskins decisions are nine hundred and eighty eight and is that it's a good reason in that case the question whether aiding and abetting in principle were treated the same as it did me answer the question the question there is that they determine
different conclusion their results did in an approximately seven year increase in his term of incarceration the brief has been argued based on the over twenty two hundred ninety six issue in the argument today i'm going to focus on the zero seven nine and the ninety six issue and what i believe to be a fundamental mistake in fact that has doing was looking back at a record and saying well the board and eighty seventh made a mistake if found a violation but didn't impose a sanctions and now we can come back and impose sanction when you look at the excerpt of record and see on the board action forum which is of pages fifteen and sixteen of the record you'll find that the ford with five members at that time and the only nine six rule that required for members to take certain actions because only muster three who wanted to wanted to do one thing and two who wanted to do something else so deep that the excerpt sixteen makes it clear that the board at that time considered the violation consider imposing eight years late the sanctions did not have the votes to do something when you turn to page fifteen of the x or the forum that has lots of codes and stopped at the bottom arcane parole board material when you look at the decision that they will not impose any further sanctions time beyond the time that you've already served prior to their action which resulted in the consideration date of two thousand and one now unfortunately for mr cox when you look at the decision of the oregon board of the oregon court of appeals what you find is that they make the fundamental  begun to run consecutively at some point in the future which is what they attempted to do by application of the new rules in one thousand nine hundred sixty given there's no you can see that the sentence was ordered to run consecutive correct that's correct and that there was only one sentence that was consecutive for purposes of this leader rule change that's correct ok so then the question becomes whether or not your argument was that the board of looked at that situation and decided even though the guy committed this second crime on his first day of parole that we're not going to impose any kind of additional parole sanction for that violation is that is that where your position is that that i inside baseball park but i'm not sure i translate very well the three to vote and then when you turn to page fifteen the months line which is maybe two inches up from the bottom of page fifteen  their obligation if this hearing was to look at both and setting a consideration date i think they should be it should be assumed that they understand their obligation and then doing this appeals than otherwise boards applied the new version of only nine six away are which permitted action with if that time because of the change in the number of in the null for decision which is stated in the briefs which says that you need to look at the totality of the impact of the rules and whether or not there is any evidence that can be presented
finding that in your view was necessary to define the elevation in other words you had to find the age of the child now you can hide that because i was listening to you but there's no doubt about what the police to the statute of the stature of sexual abuse of a minor member of the statute in immigration is sexual abuse a minor part relating to not involving to not having something to do not pertaining to in which this court found in you might move right you can do what you want because this is only a third of the court but you might want to move right to what all of the rise in this child was a minor there's no question about it you can look at the police report you know she was a minor because you got a document you know the fact that the problem with that is he was charged originally with a crime involving a minor and then they reduced the charge to a crime not involving a minor they drop the minor out of the out of the case so why should we look to the to cuts against two completely well look at each of your opponent i'm not knocking argument but that's what i was trying to get of the focus on that because that's what you have to answer if you don't sanitation of standards that were clearly outside the conviction record including our complaint applications and police report to ascertain if an alien's conviction fell this is a generic classification be a minor that's correct and so when you say we should hold it we wouldn't be holding it to find out the answer that question for this pretty clear you get the pleading and that's why i  so bad that it's it's it's a crime whether you do it to an adult or to a minor just because the state did not set out to separate crimes two separate extensive one for minors and one for adults therefor
serving a forty three years and to this based on a false confession that the trucker had previously suppressed during the course of a three day suppression hearing the trial court found that mr sanders had been have stayed our defense trial if he had the side not to testify at that trial and take the stand but he testified contrary to the statements he gave to the police which bring prior inconsistent statements which the state is allowed to school on cross examination matter what occurred here nor is the defendant elected to testify any prior inconsistent statements he made to the