MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
know i'm in the rolling hills country of northern maryland the holders rallying to the call for more food john the growing army a victory garden this is dad holding he helps with the heavy work mother well she helps with most everything line of beans complete the early garden now for the real garden evenly spaced about one foot apart covering may be done with plough or with ho young cabbage and tomato plants are coming along well in the cold rain being hardy cabbages are planted early that the roots the and presses the soil firmly around them if the ground is dry he brought a little water into each hole before covering a piece of property group two inches square with a slip through a hole in the center will keep maggots that is if they ever reach the table the paper still keeps the maggots away from the cabinet tomatoes are a must in every victory garden ma'am lots of them plants are set up when danger a few cappers are desirable the holders done of the hot weather plants seven weeks ago in the kitchen window who said gardening was just a pleasant exercise is the first pest the common cabbage were meeting holes in the newest cabbage leaf like a good gardener deck is on the job to protect the crop from is also a good spray for a great tomatoes and roses cabbage is available in the garden over a long period carrot are rich in vitamin d needed for night vision and building up resistance to disease young yellow beetles may strip a plant completely in a week or two a complete generation occurs in thirty five the tomatoes are troubled by will be caused by a fungus that lives in the soil and attacks through the roots getting into the sap carrying tubes and shutting off the water supply the plants die left mike and ready to hew is the sign of a similar disease affecting plant not the darkened tissue in the cut them the remedy is rotation of crops the clean white appearance of this them indicates a healthy plant not another grown enemy attacks all parts of the plan
qualification appy to know three is that it takes the meaning of the term as defined in eleven no one except with regard to the date of the conviction and without regard to the date of the conviction there's no other qualifier it would make it that is that is somewhat vague but it must mean more than a de minimus deprivation and again although no virus mightiness involved the intent requirement to have that of all examples listed could also fall within the california statute regardless of the intent requirement
restitution for the court's benefit that was the legal argument that's not being made because of mr murphy proceeds being made by counsel as this court ruled last year in the united states ryssdal the legality of restitution orders is reviewed now order restitution he was to receive the touche analysis you know the no point the defense argue look court you have no authority to order restitution in this case factor if you raised the authority argument yes i mean i think that what i what i just read to the court was first official raising of the i mean i think that the government itself in its and its sensing memorandum cited eighteen united states code section three six six three provisions of section thirty five fifty six which is the restitution statute in the and in the code we look at thirty five fifty six that again now refers us that the court is to follow the procedure set for thirty six let's talk about i think they want to forty hours of investigating security officers time trying to figure out who is spending the stuff through the computer now looking just that that forty hours why isn't this really a victim when it spends forty hours of a particular officers time trying to find out what this guy's doing to their system and to them well fairly specific claim by the city for a loss that suffered as a result of the defendant's home then well that's true that the city did indeed suffer that loss but the vast majority of the losses claimed under productivity argument which i don't think is covered in the third i don't think the judge really made any specific findings that that was entitled the study of to tell the destitution for that amount so i don't think there's a causal connection that was proved lewd harassing are threatening communications he addressed it to an employee and city of seattle and to a computer and which that employee you worked his intent in doing so it was clear it was that has created the change to the victim witness protection act which was enact protection act in one thousand nine hundred four both of those statutes now include language that does allow investigation cost for example and that would resubmit support in a war for lost productivity c this employer as a direct result of the actions the criminal conduct of this individual usually billed fined by the city parks department to a capital improvement project the city of seattle residents will vote for a bond issue to approve certain capital improvement projects bonds are issued the cost of the park in part in employees are then built to that project and you know way that includes not only defense salary but the entire cost of employing that employee that is the overhead for
judge does that i you know i wouldn't i wouldn't be making this argument but the fact is the judge didn't do that i think you can even make this a similar argument as to well she didn't deserve a role in just maybe my client did i don't agree that my client deserved  each and every parent but you certainly if each and every transaction especially when we're talking about transactions here that are very large we're talking about you know one or two pellets you are talking about six hundred fifty pounds a thousand pounds over twenty two hundred pounds of merrill worth of marijuana but that is far the findings of the district court or not clearly erroneous he can rely on the district court can rely upon hearsay mexico drivers to montana he is the person that had multiple properties where the drugs were stored he was the actual owner of the phoenix property and here additionally again was the person who the government doing bullies i will be frank that the government believe that we have sufficient proof on both co defendants of the district court disagree that's why the district court is the one who determines how much mr by hector that was later found on the defendant's baseline property this is property that the defendant has forfeited in this case and again on page one fifty three
causes of action a recall claim any common law fraud claim that were not classed claims in the earlier class action and i'm going to refer to that class action as the view or more class action single narrow issue on appeal in this case is whether the statute of limitations on those those rico and fraud claims were aquaduct we are told by the fuel more class action even though again class complaint absolutely not it wasn't true it's different it was different primarily because in louise complaint he talked about written employment agreements that he had that were signed by  the reason he included those allegations in his complaint is because those written employment contracts memorialized his right to profit sharing and they also showed how mr du pree use the point them out now please look at the record at page sixty four and page seventy two and i'm referring to lose complaint in the record look at her graphs eighteen a paragraph thirty seven where no he did not it was a mandatory class now lou louie was not given the opportunity to opt out he never received correspondence from class counsel giving him the opportunity opt out in the gilmore case there was well there were two separate class actions consolidated together one of the class second class actions was all of you half of union employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement the second class action your client ever contact counsel for the class no passed before the settlement you know he did not but under the american type rule he doesn't have to take any affirmative action in order to be protected by that class action on that class is protecting you he was it was a salaried employee of the family falls in the company the class was brought on behalf of those people he was i think the position that what we're comparing them to talk about the class plane first mr card's claim that the individual class representative roberta gilmore was the one who brought the common law fraud claims pushes breach of contract claims the only class involved really mr cooper's mental state when he entered into a series of contrasts that were entirely alien to the original class action whether or not he entered in these contracts with the whatever claims he may have had against the class for improperly excluding him are not germane to a tort action against mr duke or personally for fraud they're just these are they're not just different species of clients or different genus for phylum they're different families of clans and they really have nothing to do with each other and if the american pipe doctrine has any meaning it cannot possibly whole the action to declare the right relative rights of the parties impose a constructive trust my understanding is that mr deuchar had already received these profits and  diagram you know maybe there's a few common facts or maybe there's some bicycle relation between the theories and that's enough to troll the statute of limitations for that subsequent claim and the very evil  based on new facts that were not relevant no one noticed and this is the kindest case where that kind of abuse is readily apparent if this is in fact told under the
it the only thing that he writes other than check off is me there's no relation there's no narrative there's no analysis the questions are framed by the attorneys and there was also speculation that because she had retired somehow that impacted upon the veracity of her medical symptoms i think that's speculation and i don't think that's accurate either  until she was retirement age and at that point because of apparently because of the challenges that were created by her impairments she retired part of the council you said that there was nothing in the records regarding her in part of this case from my perspective when the claimant filed her application and she indicated that she was unable to continue doing her past relevant work because of pain because you had to get up and stretch because she had to use the footstool and because you cough and she the he treated her for pain but the treatment that he offered her was tylenol pm for her to sleep well at night it wasn't an epidural injection
met but that was after the trial that was after he was found guilty of it so at this point the trial for two didn't give him an attorney even though he said he couldn't afford one and then he convicted him of a crime that he didn't understand well i guess i t even an attorney and the luck of the draw for she was found not guilty of one of the charges but the prejudice still is that she wasn't given a trainee for a crime which she could go to jail for up to three hundred sixty four days and ultimately he was convicted of
november two thousand three and a half months quite sure obligation making the unequivocal showing shown one of the problem to the problem here in that
call a stolen checks at the money market or check mark at local check cashing establishment if you will hear why there he spoke with a customer who sent us a check mark had stolen his checks he then went to speak with an employee of the
what more do you have in do you have to show more when it was found that the prosecutor was willing to accept those individuals at one point and then obviously other jurors came on and i think that we all know that at that point both lawyers have an opportunity to really look at the constitution of their panel and decide you know how they think that would all work together since you just have to show more than numbers here four prospective like yours and three of them were challenged by the state does that mean that we know about all of the others or what do we know about the others this a little bit more now we do know that only one african american was on this jury do we not yet and whoever might have been in the room among those in the addition there were twenty two additional perspective jurors who were waiting outside the courtroom and who were subsequently called into the courtroom shortly after that when their motion was denied and there's this record shows a race of anybody who is challenge  just the fact that these three jurors are ultimately challenge were passed several times by the prosecutor does that have any significance from your perspective i think it has a great deal is in the because i think it clearly shows that the seek we attach some significance to the fact that the prosecutor accepted the jury if i didn't if i'm getting the picture correctly under california procedure the party can and the prosecutor going to accept a jury by not challenging when it comes to speech turn and then presumably if the defendant were to say i'm satisfied that would be the end of it correct but once the defendant says i'm not satisfied by exercising an additional peremptory then that opens the whole arena again for the state is that's the idea right and that then it doesn't matter whether the state is challenging a juror that is rip that said it takes the place of another is a result of the defendant's challenge or just goes at large to the jury again right right and then vote happens if the state exercises the number of challengers it's allowed in its turn and then the defendant weighs except the jury state get to keep right on going if you run out challenges after the defendant had been almost finished or in the deal with the state almost finished and then say now i'm going to really use these and he has no weapon against you i get on there is that's the way it works this particular case he accepted the jury numerous times which meant that you know the defense had numerous opportunities to accept it as well and they chose instead to continue to exercise a peremptory challenges but clearly the
may please the court my name is mark called on here this morning representing mr galvin the social security manager before you actually begin your argument counsel i'd like the government to know a couple things i already told him you told him so it's fully fleshed out his partner at oberoi is someone i know and in the past lives the name social security business when i was in practice brother wrong is one of my closest friends and i represented his parents ten years ago when i was in private practice i don't think that will affect my looks impartial jurist but i want you to know that medical bill cation guidelines do not apply in such instances having said that i believe this matter should be resolved by remaining forward of benefits the primary reason that i think that argument case where the a l j used the opinion of the neurologist to exclude the opinion of the rheumatologist or a case where the a l j took both the consideration and found the opinions both of who were treating physicians as i understand it but both of them into consideration and thought the erotic just opinions more persuasive on or the which does not evaluate all of the impairments in the case cannot be found to be given controlling weight to discount those that plaintiff to perform light work there's no question about that you have one doctor saying there's light work and one doctor saying that basically the person is disabled those are inconsistent decisions they both considered his complaints of pain doctor was an instance where the daily activities of the claim that supported the decision it was just one part of it he had an explanation he had an explanation for an instance when he was vacuuming and when he fell down i'm not as i as was in the brief we're not sure exactly what the what the explanation was referring to the explanation the l j did not children and walk them to the bus stop those were all the gym the considerations for the make so if you don't accept the vacuum cleaning explanation that they believe that the record still support consideration the specialties he took into consideration and very importantly the length of time that playing with the opponent with seen by each of the physicians and if he took into account the very little by way of republic your honor but i do want to make three points one the commissioner has a backwards when the commissioner says that purty girl doesn't have a significant effect on the occupational base and therefore the medical
appropriate limits on the ability of the natural gas company to use federal law to deprive the town's conservation commission of its power to protect a wing that's why it went resources the central issue in this case is the scope of federal because of the claims that the natural gas company has made the natural gas companies complete is premised on the argument that either of the natural gas act was preemptive from the get go as soon as the commission issued its decision going to pull the trigger until the town proceeding is over and then you walk into town proceeding can't be preempted because the state hasn't yet pulled the trigger that's what the score seems to be going on here the state has adjudicated on the coastal zone management act and told us that it's done everything except this one preemption thing that it's holding which has nothing to do with any of those issues we know from the d war the state would say no we're not going to give you our sign off because we've got this reason over here project can go forward in this case it's not even there's no dispute  right so all rot it just seems that what you're saying for the reason why we should bow fighting preemption seems disconnected from any underlying connection with forward until the preemption issue is resolved by this court so i think that sequence of events six planes the timing of when we bought this suit within thirty days of the presiding officer holding up that state permit and send sending us this federal court to did not address with respect to wet ones at the at the station site that's not accurate if you look at that one ninety three it shows you were sort of specifically addressed wetlands and said quote no ones will be impacted at the when that site that was in the certificate order i think just as in weaver's code the overlap and the conflict between the two findings is enough to establish preemption
through he came to basically a conclusion that he couldn't come to a conclusion that there were a lot of different possibilities so it would not but he did not know any way wrong the conclusion that she  responsibility and i think that the the proposal of the defendant for this multipronged test of whether or not the lingering qualifie that's correct i don't think the government any objection to the initial to pretend to be an accountant knowing i'd agree with that i'm merely saying that it's it's not really fit to say that to measure of the period of the delay by the way you just did by using the entire eight month period between the time was wasted because of the need for the nd examination so that certainly would be a fair way to look at it another way to look at it would be even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with respect substantial delay because the guideline covers attempts and so even had there been no delay if this were a willful premeditated effort by the defendant a minor and thereby escape  responsibility for this offense that that would be sufficient for the enhancement
three my client annually bromley was in a state of a more rational turmoil he had recently lost his sister was the first of the siblings passed away i watched a video of her kind of  mr brumley marijuana to deal with the pain that he'd been in his entire life because of his physical condition that night he had used marijuana that's clear he admitted to that that is chang
tell me i thought that there wasn't disagreement so if there was tell me where to look in the excerpts what i'm concerned about is this works why the supreme court case you want to rely on a prisoner communicating to another prisoner about right i can see where that can cause a lot of trouble for the prison in this case it's a prisoner communicating to the i thought or at least in the designated way in order to make a complaint about a guard and if you want to make a complaint about a guard doing something improper sexual i can see how we can do it without talking about sexual material and it looks like it's not stirring things up with the other prisoners so i'm really concerned with what the record says about who we communicated to well  one i thought that was not an issue until i don't see any indication on appeal of the we certainly have not made a point out i simply want to know that there is that question on appeal it seems to me problem he if you look in shock for example shaw said look there are the courts mucking around with the particular words and particular content going between prison and what you're asking here is that in this area the there that are in the rule but where i think this court better be the logical outcome of your position when it comes right and something about the question didn't make it through my friend let's suppose that the guard really did have a personal motive of sexual you further suppose that it seems to me the larger go outcome of your position is that if the grievance process proceeded correctly the guard would be disappointing the president would also be disappointed for the way he said it is that right ye of different versions that are in here you know i don't i'm not i'm not claiming it's the most shocking document that any of us quite far even approaching the most shocking document that any of  second whether appellate certain title to qualified immunity for violating my client's constitutional rights i'm going to begin with the issue of whether bradley continues to be the law of the circuit and i'll move on to the qualified immunity issue later first clear  on the basis that the legal grievances that the top of the page you're claiming protection because it was filed this grievance in the white box rather than communicated to other prisoners  prisoners with share grievances with each other and that they look at them and that with foster just respect the prisoners concerned that there could be direct communication between the prisoner and the guard that would foster an atmosphere of disrespect but none of those things have anything to do with the grievance that is partly submitted through the grievance process and because of that there's just not a rational relationship and that was the case in the bradley and it's even more the case today of the prison legal these cases that have struck down three male that ground but this court doesn't even need to get to that point because what of helen didn't say in the opening argument is that you can't just point to some tension between bradley and shaw and say therefore bradley must be a real bright