MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is not an indication to the immigration judge that is the only place the entire administrative law they could even be literally extremely liberally construed as raising the issue of counsel position and that it doesn't and then even scramble here to come up with an answer what happens you don't know what to do you know you know what happens know started out ninety two and i two years as a trial attorney for the immigration and naturalization service so for that reason i'm familiar with what happens and essentially what counsel has said is correct what happens is writing in that package and then the whatever appeals they have to put their reasons on that and in addition they can expand on that in brief i think one like thank you for
before the supreme court mr ewing his current crime was grand theft he stole three golf clubs worth three hundred ninety nine dollars each that was his current offense the priors were four burglaries in one robbery and the united states supreme court in a five four decision upholding the conviction against anything i might challenge did look at the underlying circumstances of the burglaries in the robberies and noted that in one of the robberies a knife was used that seemed to be an important factor for the united states supreme court and indeed this court in rumor ramirez versus castro also took that to heart and say we're not going to be bound by labels robbery of course is the taking of personal property from another by force or fear but this court very cheerfully looked at the underlying circumstances of mr ramirez as priors in one case he took merchandise from a store and pushed the security guard with an open hand probably shock listening but because he pushed the guard with the security guard with an open hand the riverside county district attorney's office chose to prosecute this as a robbery not as a shoplifting in the other robbery prior his confederate ran over the security guards who thought while they were leaving after they shot in the shoplift it's merchandise that to the district attorney's office in riverside chose to prosecute that as a robbery instead of a shoplifting in this case so were there was a nineteen year gap the priors a rose in nineteen eighty and in light of that i would urge this court to follow the ramirez court reversed the district court and grant m case we're not addressing a life sentence that is the result of a handful of property crimes that do not involve weapons violence or prison terms rather we are dealing with a case where the years so he did go to put prison he violated his parole and so he was returned to prison and where you know there is a list of crimes every year or two up until the time to more time that's exactly right and the legislature has told the superior courts that they can look to those things but in exercising their judgment in a remeron motion under california penal code section thirteen eighty five the superior court can dismiss priors in the interest of justice that is a very broad abuse of discretion power where the court can look to the other things that  avenue under another test under the piece of discretion test i don't think that that that should play a factor in the growth disproportionality test which the supreme court has said this is how you look at the strikes or a righteous tricks i believe they did in all frankness i believe that both those courts did list them in the discussion of the history of the cases but i don't believe that there was real emphasis on it in i believe if you look at the federal sentencing guidelines there are lots of regulations that the sentencing commission of has promulgated to talk about when two separate crimes that are charged in a single proceeding should be
which some years down the road they interpret it to some extent well what burns in that are going to be held to does a state court have to cover every possible permutation of the application of escape as usual bar and that's not the  well i think that the the grounds that mr caylee's presented and this petition here and the and the evidence once again shown to you or what was presented in the court below doesn't get any rise that was part of the subject of dickerson and it's difficult for the state to say that it's a frivolous argument to say that the floors are taking a claim that's not is a position that doesn't challenge a judgment or sense in this court held that very thing if you thousand or in the twenty to of the right to direct appeal is a direct appeal of a judgment or conviction you want to overturn that judgment of conviction but you're not going up the right to direct appeal if it
an application with the rule for withdrawal can i ask you to stop right here just for a second can i ask the government question as i understand the government's all position to the with role of the application was that the individual might not might stay he might not go back to its use of taiwan hong kong might not go back to hong kong and do what he's saying he wants to do is not right  some way of washing this other stuff aside he'd be perfectly entitled to that that's absolute correct when i now start this respecting the government is concerned then and in a general sense legitimately so that your client might not go back to hong kong and start this process it just seems to this judge now could the media does the governor have any objection to evaluated the factors and in the interest of justice particularly having regard to the age of the child and the circumstances and the credibility could have made the decision but actually failed to make that decision  now granted he has gone back to hong kong now but based it based on those criteria and the interests of justice being that the you know the truth actually the purpose of doing this would not be  i'm not sure to what extent it's actually moot because he's gone back to hong kong he's clearly had no past persecution on there's no evidence of that in the petitions council even conceded that with respect to his well founded fear future positively as they can possibly stated that what we comes to sentencing judges must act reasonably that means no absolute discretion like usually now th case with respect to the asylum claim that he only fear that the petitioner has is going back to a communist country but there's really no evidence the record compelling evidence he'd be persecuted any ground  the petitioner knew that he had broken the law but there were other findings that he made an innocent mistake and there was no fraud and there was no immigrant intent in my view he just declined to intervene because the you thank you very much free time takes us to the next case on the calendar which is mcdonnell counselor present if they come forward freeman you're back
being a problem or as being outside the scope of the invention well i was waiting for you to say that because it does seem to me that you've got that's where you start running into problems and let me just quote a passage that i'm sure and this i believe is where the district or there are among other spots district court found that there was no reference in the specification to anything other than you would want to make but we're talking here about whether the invention should be limited to substantial surety or not and there's no reason to do so with respect to the pri license it's not shown as the mixture which is clearly shown in the patent for example if you look at column twelve of the patent at at lines forty to forty five you can see that limited to the c p k intermediate they make no distinction they said substantially pure as used in those claims one through seventeen means ninety eight point three percent or ninety percent excuse me and then when he got to th so judge brown took them at their word and that's what i understand the prosecution is to be a sport if you make statements like that you can come in later in court and argue that somehow this does not apply this is what they told the world and i think they should be and so did judge bro and the question is why shouldn't we attach this again because i think that the relevant issue is what is the spec tell you the c p k has to be and i think when you look at that question the c b j has to be s surety that's their invention that's how they described it and that's what it should be limited to i don't see how you can just all of a sudden really look at the spec later when you're unhappy with it with what you clipped what you described as your invention substantially fewer that he did not find the end product and to be any particular part so we end up with district court construction not making any chemical that you can
coffee can but that is a lot to expect of a pro and i don't think those are good arguments if we were you know washington court of appeals of the washington supreme court reviewing this and direct appeal but where we met i don't think that that is sponsored either in that he was still expecting there to be some sort of discussion you were still expecting to be given the option to choose whether or not to testify you have something to keep in mind as there are a lot of does not necessarily convey to the criminal defendant that he has the right to get up and make a scene in court and say your honor i don't understand why my counsel is resting i want to testify i think that is trial judge does have a responsibility if defense counsel says we rest your honor to inquire whether that that that they that that of the defendant whether he has knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to testify in the court means t understand that it is being done knowingly intelligence problems here but and how is it supposed to do that other than asking i think the most simple way to do that would be to and i'm ok and what and what supreme court case tells us that a trial judge has that saying that he was watching the defendant's reaction and that he didn't see any surprise on his face or disappointment or that he was upset that counsel was resting well that the district court was wrong here what case tells me that the district court made the mistake i don't think there's a just or a sprint for the next issue but i think the interplay of the right and the client's right to assert their right in this case or the waiver sort of st happened after colloquy it either between the judge and the defendant or between defense counsel and and and and the defendant on the record but who do not have this his petition exhibits at pages thirty four to thirty five at that point it would have been a great opportunity for a defense
or the only and i would point you to our three hundred forty three ninety two which are the kind of returns which actually show that there is a five hundred thousand dollar improvement from year to year before now and we have
that that the statute doesn't necessarily require physical assault in all circumstances no ok thank you i don't see why taylor categor reading would not compel the conclusion that this was a crime of violence the statute says whoever forcibly and has that adverb forcibly assaults resisted poses has these various other things with  person designated in six eleven fourteen seems like the adverb forcibly makes it categorically am a crime of force it r level increase instead of sixteen level increase why should why should we care what he found when i look at the guidelines it's this crime of violence means any offense that has as weak insult and it wasn't fair it wasn't fair to the defendant to do that and fairness is part of what this court was involved in front you dispense when he sentenced or strike even a downward part that's know i don't think it is he certainly didn't know that the guidelines weren't mandatory at that time and i would suggest that it would probably be appropriate to do that you know it's not about this i mean are you making me want to think about it and i thought about it at length and i think what i'm concerned with is whether or not the judge would go higher or lower but it's probably appropriate to do that was a felony if there's no doubt that this judge knew it was a felony also that it was a crime of violence categorically under taylor's the government's position it's the position that the district court found below and it was correct under the law  but either way that you know the level he felt was too high right correct the government's response is that the court applied the guidelines as was required that it was appropriate for him to go up six levels but why are you responding you thank you thank you had a minute or two left if if i wish to think about well can i get a clarification you answered my question that you weren't seeking
a protected ground so they didn't include that in the next and the next one determining whether the harm he suffered actually rises to the level of persecution and by contrast in this case all of the record is somewhat difficult to decipher we know that in  judge concluded that each and every one of these incidents was on account of race the only issue in this case is do these these incidents cumulatively rise to the level of persecution or scientists barely not controlling any reasonable person would conclude they do additional out of us the government's position is that somehow and summarily affirming the immigration judge's decision in this case the board also ruled on the motion to remain and i just don't see that reason i don't see that is that the motion and the validity of the immigration judge's decision the brief that we filed first attack the immigration judge's decision but then any alternatives that if you disagree with us on those points and you think the immigration judge ruled correctly we think that this case should be really in it for additional evidence it's impossible to understand how firming the immigration judge's decision can dispose of the motion to reopen because the motion to reopen is predicated on an assumption that the immigration judge ruling was correct and it's asking despite the essentially after one nine hundred eighty seven there were an it person experiences but nothing happened to him after that until this one isolated incident where he's on his way to a sports complex and he you know it's cousin or not but that again you have and then nothing happened to them there were some employment problems but he held on to his job and he was main main fully employed until he finishes the two month vacation and after three months that he didn't return the job was given to someone else but he continue ago now has suffered several incidents and then nothing until one granted an isolated incident she didn't leave the country of her persecution he just thought it is a lesson to his father in australia came back and then came to the united states and that's where he decided to stay you don't have a picture of african from south africa and it was during the time of apartheid in these things that happened in the recent knowledge mcbride you i g a this happens with here is racial tension in the were incidents of beatings me saying that the passage of time means that there was no past persecution seems to me it seems to me the difference here is that we can say now that goes to change country conditions but we apply the presumption first if we find past persecution just great in that period of time and did not rise to the level of persecution there was one heart one incident apartment one thousand nine hundred eight and some burglaries but part of it is and the country reports indicate this although they were brought streamline and we find no reason to reason and perhaps and certainly before the court this morning i would say i wish they had but they were not required to because in streamlining under bore existing board president we're in a permanent the immigration judge
opposite that she was not authorized to endorse the checks but the way that it was done was so easy because all she had to do with take the stand which she wasn't supposed to stamp the back of the check with a pre mike my reading of the record was that the problem was she was not an authorized person by mr smith's charity to have anything to do with this money but that she got ahold of a stamp and then she started deposit in checks and changing the p two to herself or her husband or her creditors and that's how she defrauded the foundation  without regard to whether the bank is a witting or unwitting instrumentality of the crime then why shouldn't the district court have taken a plea where she freely admitted that she helped herself to almost three hundred thousand dollars and smith foundation money that she had no right to take and that that was the essence of the scheme to defraud she did it in a way to try and hide from the foundation that she was circuit talk note the fact that when congress passed thirty forty four the bank fraud statute it intended to adopt the law of mail and wire five hundred thirty forty one that was what congress had in mind that's in legislative history so if that's the case why should we analyze bank fraud under thirteen forty four the same way we would if we were looking at this as a mail fraud under thirty forty one yes that's a good point except defraud and thereafter did a mailing or used an instrument of wire in order to perpetrate the fraud we don't really care that the victim might be a bank the victim might be an account owner or the victim might be  failures across the country where banks were essentially being victimized and serving in essence says schemes that help people get rich quick at somebody else's expense you know i don't know  would you agree that if they charge or under thirty forty four too there would have been a crime here not only yes ok thank you  government purposes here the point is that there is exposure for the for the issuing bank when there isn't an authorized signature effects to the check so the analogy would be if i forge by  an authorized indorsement signature on a chair i present that check to the bank and the bank is going to be liable for making an authorised disbursement in response to that check because it should know from looking at this quickly if the signature that it didn't match signature card that was on file in the back that's correct but the problem we have here as i understand it is that there was some kind of i thought it was one of those endorsements that commercial businesses sometimes get from the bank that simply pay to the order of the union bank of california account number so on and so on you just stamp it on the back of the jacket i mean the bank would have no way of and she specifically admitted the way in which she intended to defraud the financial institution which was by misleading them to believe that this was an authorized check from mr green thank you
seen in plain view and the officers executing the warrant were aware that your client was a felon so why wouldn't that be evidence of a felony in plain view so not specifically covered in the war so i think the i think the court's question to me was knowing that the defendant was a felon did that did not that make the final forms contraband well i'm saying to the individual who answered the door to them had control of the premises that time so even though i don't know that that specifically in another context they had absolutely no that they the guns not belong to him i think in this context where those guns were not described and the right stuff i think it makes a different case knowing what they knew and that i again that that that solves the problem here  and again it just seems to me due process requires that it in fact the agents wanted to seize those guns they should have  articles of personal property tending to establish a conspiracy to sell cocaine and that is at least as good as the simpson case that we cite in our brief separately from that argument is the argument that was touched on in the in the previous coll specifically relying on the interview of defendant after the search and that's where defendant at first denied ownership of any of the five guns and then when he was told that the daughter saw him bring two rifles  into the home he admitted ownership of those two rifles and subsequently he also offered to admit ownership of all five guns if the government did not charge the girlfriend the district specifically cited that and said that that didn't even get that far to rely on that the court said based on the circumstances and based on what if what defendant said during his interview that that's enough to support the handsome and the court has no more questions
very modest findings sensation was normal reflexes were normal i think there was only mild restrictions on motions of the spine to strength was normal gait was normal  druckenmiller did say that in the future mr messina might need surgery if he doesn't improve with conservative treatment but at the time he merely recommended conservative treatment with exercises and  by that same pain specialist noted that his pain ratings were about five so they're from moderate rather than extreme and by public ones but i think there were several visits sometimes they were merely five noted that mr messina had refused a note because a work note because he stated that he was self employed and looking for work the only limitation mentioned by dr bill me act was one month earl  expertise in evaluating social security claimants so while they don't have that specialty their opinions are especially pardon and because they do have this expertise and they specifically looked at the very  state agencies physician doesn't examined a claimant doesn't mean that that opinion is not worth a significant weight when that opinion is supported by the evidence in the record and here it's supported by the findings of dr druckenmiller and all the other physicians as well and it's also supported by mr mistiness activities of daily living which i want to just stress included included riding a motorcycle yes  r two thousand and eight disability from may two thousand and eight so we're looking at that period in that period only now if mr messina ultimately wants to apply for supplemental security income and if he in the past correct that's the limit yes would there be the requirement that you that your disability extends for at least twelve months yes so he has to show that he was disabled at some point his disability began in that eight month period probably some of that time but i also add that the same doctor recommended that he exercise significant if you can do your job or do it with pain medication no you're