MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
court has the authority to do so i think that the one in the case carefully in terms of the sentencing guidelines i think that i'm more of an explanation is necessary especially since every single word is obliged to apply the sentencing guidelines in every case so is this court actually saying that whenever the guidelines is considered an ha then the leak is not in the bag i really d court from the beginning of the case to the end of the case is based upon where we used testimony in this so called one spurious ate the conspiracy consisted there was no proof of it yes i would address the serious physical injury enhanced men on and i just want to go back one second with respect to me and since we were talking about the guidelines and on the guideline that minutes you have a bedroom upon the search on march first number one and number two this huge quantity of similarly branded identically branded heroin future heroin found in the us is house on the same day in a separate search sentence report and see his prison record thereafter and it's either right or wrong it doesn't matter about the grouping and i knew that there was no objection to some of these things but i think in this particular case the pla
nice to try to do that to try to do something like well but it's right to one of the central issues isn't it preserve presume  the workstations that's what's not able and there's nothing in the record that shows at the time anybody could have done that that anybody would think it was very extremely high like the system i can tell you looking at this record topic i just mentioned and it has several sub paragraphs that's on a four fifty through a four fifty one basically  speculation is not what would be in a situation like this where you have very detailed very specific reasons were dr mercer's isn't that what you said to them they have to have more references and in fact they did they had for it you ha go to a new experimentation i had to try it six different ways in order to make it work the the the concepts disclosing the four minutes are very complex systems printed publication is presumed unable because what it is really a cursory outline and it may reside each element of the claims but supplies no credible recitation of how that would be well the applicant in that case will always have the opportunity to say look you have insufficient data prima facia case although you pointed out the elements disclosed in your minimal disclosure that's what he said here ok but the first question is we're not debating that or someone comes back in to be able to rebut with evidence lack of an able man that that's that shown us how that's not the case here you know that's why we are likely to asian has to be is that each one of those elements did exist one of them was over at i b m and one was someplace else and one was someplace else and no one would idea of how they would be when together in contrast with before because it's a very detailed explanation and analysis of how these things would fit together and how they do fit together now it's true to research paper it's true they didn't necessarily have a working model in place but all of the things that they discussed and before as well as my hosts and huang and barrett the four references in all four references not only do they discuss these elements but they discuss these or whether they're in front of publication they are both sufficient as your initial started going and once you get the starting point going then they have to come back with evidence and once that happens comes in with a few details burton at that point they have a look at that so they have to consider they have to w one of the question you came up with one of deploying middle schools and and the concession was also a minimal closure that should be easier but that's exactly what we have here with respect to foreign ministers very minimal disclosure on the things that we say are you should be able to do that something and something yeah they figure out how to do that certainly not that and that's what the commercial talks about how complicated and hard it would have been to try to do that and he doesn't do it includ
work part time was paid rehabilitated benefits continued to work part time when she exhausted that and finally collapsed and could no longer gauge work activity the record in this case  and that was what was the not that's correct and under the terms of the policy she was not eligible for coverage because she was no longer a full time employee that was the reason for  ok what's wrong with that you say it's all one client and she said she's working less than thirty thirty hours a week prior to writing nine hundred ninety five you then if you work full time she was understand and she had coverage right and she took kind of benefits under that cover for act and she went on a disability and continued to work for the most to the extent she possibly could which was a part time work activity until she saw he had no coverage during that period because she didn't work thirty hours a week i think a reasonable reading of this policy is that if i go out while i'm on disability if i go back and work part time that i have not forfeited everything that i have earned by paying premiums in the past and that the insurance company provides an exclusion if you get other coverage then you don't get to take advantage of the treated as one provision this is a this is not the case as you are pointed out she didn't have any coverage she didn't work full time for more than six months  appropriate a link reading a receipt insurance policies and especially a program one of the supreme court's decision in the universe has worked that reasonable reading of the policy that allows student panicky to take advantage of  with respect to the issue of whether or not the second claim relates back to the first claim no it does not the truth periods of disability must be separated by she was able to he has recovered sufficiently was using able to reach for up to a period of six months on a full time before you mean over thirty hours or over thirty hours whatever is defined as  time that never occurred there is no relation back and last night what needs to being kept in mind and i know the court has already heard a couple recent cases  we have to remember the revealing with three different definitions for over a period of time during the first twenty four months of this year is united will to perform the duties are substantial duties of her job and recurring problem the any occupation disability paradigm policy doesn't define total disability is inability to do anything anything at all hold we disable completely rendered incapacitated that's not what this policy provid this policy provides that an individual is totally disabled after twenty four months if they are unable to perform any occupation for which they are reasonably fitted by education training or experience and counsel has argued that this court
doesn't it doesn't cut it at least for purposes of sixteen we didn't directly extend it to sixteen be so perhaps that's an open question that logically it applies to sixteen v as than that field we believe that agencies ought to have the first opportunity just to decide whether to on matters within their their their their cognizance in this case as with any of hell of a matter that's brought before a court  his visa now he clearly will be eligible for release that was not eligible at the time in this case was heard by the board because under the aggravated felony the court of order and the immigration judge in the board couldn't consider those of those potential doesn't make too much sense and they can't but figure that out if you really have the grounds to believe that he should get relief then you ought to give relief just give it to her the problem your honor is again we did not have a chance we we conducted consultation with the agency council in a hurry fashion just this tuesday and we've not had the opportunity to fully flesh out the decision that is our that is our responsibility that's where she was one of them here's the question on which for this  he is still in the united states illegally of operation of one that needs to be handled at the appropriate level we believe it's the board and because we're going out of order i get and up until this morning between discussions because i think it it is is clearly within the ability of this court to do that we would prefer that the court that that the court not do this will be referred to the court send it back to the board to give the board the opportunity to look at this case because it's been three
i think what we would like to have the opportunity is for the agency to reconsider this issue for tickling in this case it didn't specifically address the question of whether i i think what the what the agency is is trying to figure out is when the underlying the fact in the criminal proceedings is for a failure to advise the alien of the immigration consequences then there is a question  that make a difference for immigration purposes this petitioner as to the quantum of punishment he faced if he pled guilty just flat out mr advised on his criminal would that make any difference for immigration purpose i'm having a little difficulty understanding why in this kind of case we would send it back for clarification to let the board do it if i understand what happened correctly on holloa make  and why should we not say it and send it back for the board to generate some other reason discover it they go to their client and say you screwed up that that it's fairly likely i'm not sure how likely but it is likely that upon their further review that they may determine that this case does merit reopening so we would we would ask the court to to you i think you anything that you feel that you need to say i have only one thing to see obviously if the government would concede at this point that the conviction no longer stands we would not oppose arena but that's not the posture we have because we don't have that concession we asked this court to rule on the merits of our petition it's a simple case but this is that this is a question that comes up repeatedly and i just don't feel comfortable having the government
at will during boarders through which is without having even a reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be discovered was drilling into a compartment below a secondary jas asking you to call look at the united states supreme court's decision in flores montana and see that say didn't make that same distinction they didn't use language saying after all this man could go on about this business but they certainly didn't make fax a test in their discussion they traffic vasser grilling cases they referred to cases were clearly the person would be able to drive away i mean if you drill there were always having to balance the rights and your rights to property against the right and the needs to be secured and i'm suggesting and i think that this is borne out by th have to do that and in fact ultimately it comes down to gas and took it off and they would have had to drill at all and you know do we really want to live guest a policy that allows without any suspicion have to as a panel follow it if we can't distinguish and in this case trying to guess my distinction would be that drilling into something that is contemplated as a permanent part of your equipment as opposed to a spare tire which is out as examples of a case where it might be so destructive if you wanted one other question and so we've been as we've been assuming and i'll try to make this very clear we've been assuming and so now if there was no reasonable a box which is nothing more than a container on the back of a pickup truck or maybe a tank above it but in that it's hartnett's ass and it is nothing more than a container that can be removed  boxes that are over the side of the pickup truck and then this sits down in the middle of the gasoline tank where the fuel tank was the first nine inches on top that could be lifted i have the impression that the customs officials of the border patrol when they grow this part of the rock they were under the impression  testify to it the evidence treat hearing by that point they knew there was a significant difference between the top of the this box if you will and the bottom and then they drilled into the bottom so i really don't think there's any distinction between these these situations there's certainly nothing about this box on the back of the pickup truck that deals with the operation of the vehicle and in fact it probably just lessens the operation movement of our vehicle and finally in this case it was very clear that there was a pump in the back all they had to do was pump up the gasoline into the tank which they ultimately did do
irish go that we've got some great sports going on today we've got our city league championships that are happening on the other field right now in hurling and i am going to go yeah we've got our gaelic football championships are going to be starting in just in just a bit and then we've got another us sort of a fun thank you about our club and all the contact information is the only seattle field stockholm that's correct mike your teacher just like the teacher seattle gayle's dot com hi it's great to be out here at the irish club picnic today taken in some i was football with the county will work in really hard right now in metro transit issues to make sure we're providing as much transit service as we can afford those are some difficult decisions in this fall we're going to take on our annual two year budget will be the first time we actually do a full two year budget wow for the county how much i just love everything you're doing you're such an active person in the community i mean we can get together people can talk to you i just really like the fact that you're available to the public thank you very much it's important to really being in contact with my constituents and people across the county but what's important to them and what services we can try to provide and maintain even in these tough budget times and people he mail you you give them a response and so that's really really nice thank you of course i'm always happy hear from people i'm on facebook twitter and you can email me at joe dot macdermott at king county dot gov thank you i'm sure people will it is just nice because you're one of those people that we can get a hold of a good thing and i got you be and football club and tacoma in twenty years now bunch of irish guys got together and none of us had actually played early before but we have a bunch of folks from our army from the local army down to have got about six people out here playing today with the girls picking the gaels and it's i see event that we'd love to come to every year so it's fantastic a lot of fun and it's come out and watch us down to come out and how do got all sorts of different areas that have kitchens you have proof and campgrounds for people to come here and ca
our evidence that directly results but those were apples and oranges the board correctly said ok where are the results were we have just one part of this solution was part of that fluid other the other solutions are referred to in this month's aberration you just can't compare them to another because the balance of the solution is different in each one or operation drilling for fluids
this was a plot of boston in the eighteen seventy the age of longfellow and emerson and lot of hope skirts and bustle of gallantry and sideburns and most fastidious manners known as genteel remember we were we were reading today about the speed of light and the speed of sound light is so fast that we see early a scottish family the bell's a settled and brand but candidate to teach people to talk the talk clearly all kinds of people stuttering folks children and important people to ministers judges and political leaders this young bell's bother it said in the paper publishes many books that go by thousands all over the world even to china can you imagine getting people to say their words just ri well now he lectures at the university and he teaches the death to speak with some kind of system is proper invented the deaf get here but there's a death young lady here in boston they say can understand speech very well  man you ought to stay i should do some plain leaves tumbled in the wind has the power to move it to make a telegraph right by a lead in the clock you had reached the fuller school the school has three good teachers now but you stayed there for three hours and  had nothing to eat but how you reached the normal school by three as only you'll know but there you were starting a new class of prospective teachers for the day business with tom sanders and me to develop this new harmonic telegraph and highly commercial and probably enriching enterprise remember it seems to me that if you gave your full attention to the telegraph you would soon have time and funds for the same wire we hope may be used for many telegraph methods is that one time now tom watson and i were preparing for the test i was adjusting this read this very in this manner watson was in another room operating the transmitting read from  in an hour but then has been working on it all day
is limited to walking or standing for two hours in an eight hour day and included in those limitations that she was not to walk on uneven ground please read together he is not making a finding that she's unable to walk one block on just that i limp more than i need a cane this is that this person cannot basically function to work or to do their daily living deli act activities detailing living and we just don't have that here and they're trying to to take one tiny and juxtapose it into another and it just doesn't fit the fact that she's not able to walk for two hours on an even surface not mean she's unable to walk one block and the bottom line is that she does have the burden of proof she has been unable to meet that burden of proof and they all taste finding that she does not need a listening should stand and lester's any other questions that's all i have thank you very much mr right i would respond only to the suggestion that credibility has been called into question that is correct that the judge found that she was not as entirely credible but that's resolved out because the credibility calculus went into determining the residual functional capacity notwithstanding any concerns that the judge may have had regarding her overall credibility yes am finding was as expressed in his residual functional that she was limited to work which did not require ambulation on an even grow ok are credible or not that's where he comes out as far as her capacity to function thus the courthouse question
maybe i'll do my commercial on a company that's a film company or a music commercial i think i'm going to go to luigi's film there maybe i can do commercials  either do a food commercial or a movie commercial or  do commercials  for thirty five years and this is my first job and here just want to say janet you're great to us here we would want anybody else i really a our pleasure any company out here anybody's company janet don't worry you'll get it how about you come with us on break to where we go and meet up at a nice little restaurant and just have a little lunch and we'll all talk and sit down and get to know each other as we really like you here don't worry you're getting it you got t
personality disorder  the language is
nine nine zero scampered first this united states process i think we understand the background of what happened let me be clear it seems to me that you've made allegations in the complaint and they are different from what you are arguing here in your brief so can you go through whether is she you agree that the that that's true as a matter of fact you all agreed that it was taken so you are alleging i thought you just said to me that she's not challenging that the us had the right to take it so what are you alleging resources and it's clearly shows to pursue her claims against the receiver but she agreed not to contest the receiver's determination and what about the i mean there's two arguable kind of waiver things here the other is in the divorce decree she says each party agrees that any remaining community property of the party is not under the control of the us receivers obtain relief upon her takings claim it's my understanding correct that the receiver determined that all of the assets in receivership were tainted that's subject to the fraud yes there was a determination of the underlying civil in force in action and this was a new issue that was raised on appeal to the first time so it's not part of the record but it's document number one six nine i'm in the underlying civil important case which is three  navigate and pages eighty nine to ninety of that decision there was a hearing how to have mr sanford was represented by counsel and he had asked for a louis style hearing right here in our pursuing to which enforcement action
does that mean that mr part of our burden of showing the publication and we only produced it for the direct quote it was quoted in my column for you for the defamatory statements for some reason the bankruptcy court pulled out another portion of that newspaper article where the defendant for the court the bankruptcy court to consider our version of the facts and see cross over him but there was absolutely no evidence doesn't help us sort out what's going on in state court is there something still pending there and has it been stated it's so that's the first point and the second crucial point is i feel like i got hit by the train going both directions so to speak in bankruptcy court relied upon the kesler standard so nineteen i can't believe seventy nine cents case of two things or not both either of subjective motives injured or objective substantial certainly i'm talking about the difference between a federal standard versus a state standard and i believe there are all federal bankruptcy sitting with this person have counsel at that time personally cross examine the vice chancellor and obviously knows by that at least by that time he has no basis but to add insult to injury then when i got to the district court the district court said well no baldwin obviously it's difficult for me to know with the last minute change three months from now and present the evidence in correspondence to comply with the quote new law i don't even know existed and i think that was just plainly clear for the district court to hold need to expand or that had not been announced at the time of the trial well specifically where we are here on the standard of you clearly erroneous on the question of whether the publication was willful that is that where we are as you look at it in other words what precisely is in front of this court at this moment and while the this court is not required to take into consideration the district court's ruling i will tell you that over and over again  standard that doesn't exist i think that is why i think there is no factual disputes here it's just two legal errors the courts the lower courts finding evidence in a triple or quadruple hearsay article that simply did not legally exist and then the in helpless spanners that in the case of the bankruptcy court were outdated and the case of the district court had not been announced at the time of the trial your position is it would have been one thing i burden under the bankruptcy rule absolutely not no no his burden to show that he did this in good faith manner that he believed what he was saying was true no it was our
on the other hand and then the judge either does or does not turn over the notes none of that was done here there was no motion for discovery at all but second trial there was certainly no motion through in camera inspection of