MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
they also talk about intimate parts which is includes brass products in under five which is not included or not generals or pubic area so i think that's kind of the base line as to why in such a case accordingly we believe this case is where the realistic probability language is simply not that high but in the body it is the design page two eighty six for the purposes of the record porn charges or is a seriously taken video of children changing how the bathing suit charging and the crux of his argument on appeal to that was that you that the trial date should on that basically because he had heavy breathing and he said that i demonstrated that it was for his own personal sexual gratification so are you for some of those two state case is the proposition that doesn't count as exploitation mediated by this new piece is the first one is can you tell me anything about the specific of offense you know what we know about what he did factually and then whether we know anything about it or not how does what he was convicted of match up or not match up with the exploitation requirement for the child abuse definition i think you are think you are using a categorical approach for this example for work where you have a federal statute that has an exception for wire antique firearms and a state statute that doesn't the supreme court said there tha particular application i did also want to point out to the party not state with that particular application as you just said so what is realistic probability is it was the probability me that we have to look to see says is that the new jersey statute doesn't have the same requirement for focus on the pubic area yet been the case that he cited when asked to do further briefing with respect to release a probability in the simply the act of photographing the child for that continues to that continues to be in circulation i do know too that the current nuts and knowledge that they can control of the production and dissemination of child pornography is and we can look at new jersey and you have to i guess you'd have to believe that new jersey is going to prosecute under their statute the government wants a court to believe that the jersey would  new york substance of which please don't ask me to pronounce was so discreet that they found that there was a realistic probability i would disagree with that analysis and i think if it's in the statute in the state then there is a realistic probability that the state is going to follow it as we see some kinds are of laws in this country that are hardly ever prosecuted and sometimes we have a zero tolerance policy so to say that there's not a reversal probability i think i that permissible burden ship it's always been traditionally the government supporting this or that someone's been convicted of aggravated felony here what happens is ok like here you're halfway there or you're boards on the child abuse and aggravated felony the boards in time of the season and said it's child abuse you lose go home in doubt counsel he could have done a petition for review at that point in time and it would have came up here
below initially found that for my convenience factors neither sufficiently were numerous or weighty to justify a form not given to the suits and then reversed itself and why did it do that it did it for one reason because in another case not this case for that so there were possibilities for recovery of additional damages in addition to the three hundred percent bicycle error but as it turned out your honor those cases have been resolved i believe almost point is judges that if there's a public interest that was involved the first place for the americans that public interest remains the same public interest is holding american corporate finance responsible for their own language and the fact that products now that interest is anymore i think there were a one time i don't think that the boeing company or the good which really had anything to do with this accident well where we treat playing is fairly united states we might have a discussion
from the first one is that this conclusion that there was a third person in the bank robbery is a reasonable one it was based on specific facts that the agents at the time they had in fact witnesses and this is all part of bank in seconds that combined with what happens at the house and they cheered when they approached the door they hear people talking like delgado cares but there was no evidence that there was another individual in the fact that we knew that there was two weapons in a bank robbery one of those was was unaccounted for we knew that the individual responsible for the bank robbery based on the information we received from the g p s was inside of that house when you combine all
for which they were closely related to be entered in the contract for which they paid twenty or thirty thousand dollars all and they said if you sign these contracts and agree to buy five million dollars of the product over the next several years we'll let you be the something somebody goofed in the clerk's office and obviously should have taken the document instead of rejecting it your honor i don't frankly know what happened in the clerk's office and i don't think there's any admissible of money solving the why to take problems for american industry an industry throughout the world the company's executive spotted off the fact that the yk problems turned out to be a complete bust and veronica's didn't make a lot of you will be
and the first holding would be that applying mathis first degree robbery is a single indivisible of pants that does not  qualify as a crime of violence because it punishes kinds of omission and not crimes that categorically require violent physical force between common concrete bodies such as jonson twenty one requires  we have to look at the definition of of physical force in the aca context and there it would be a comical miss to take common law forced definition  accept that you can commit an offense for purposes of and there certainly is some authority that that points in that direction but i just made to the court that there are reasons why it would not make sense to do so and in fact in this circuit it would require overturning twenty five years of president that is the category of domestic violence we don't have that here in africa also we're talking about increasing demands for a minimum and imposing a life story maximum and this is very different the least the least culpable backs hypothetically necessary to convict under the statute under the second degree robbery statute that we were just discussing just trying to one can be reckless as to the infliction of the injury in and one can also be reckless as committing a theft he inflicts a serious bodily injury upon another one true threatens another with were intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury were three commits or threatens to commit a felony but first or second degree you're saying it looks like this is different rays to commit a brush to a robbery and you're saying no me well was that the jury instructions felony there is no other state in which that's true and not only that it's not true in pennsylvania because we've looked through all of these records of the feds as provided and everything we've been able to throw and no
world well he did there to begin with and you'll find that in the record council goes through every issue presented plus one issue that the defendant wanted to add to his defendant was charged with violating and he was convicted under violated two months because he just didn't know he can't the snus part of the post conviction station he has to take it he spent a lot of time trying to find some arguable issue on this tooth and sentencing but you can't change the facts or the law that is that the truth in sentencing issue that was under public at eighty nine four zero four which ended up invalidating the manufacture of  and there is no you see here that's the only reason the judge let it go was is he entitled to notice of his attorney's motion to withdraw and an opportunity to respond he was there he was present in court greer doesn't say you have to give notice and we don't know that he didn't happen to us this attorney was a period of five years had in many many telephone calls which were substantially record whenever there was an argument to be made and of course they corresponded by email many many times we don't know we can't know the defendant came in after everything's all over for us motion to reconsider he didn't tell me that he was going to do that well we haven't the judge made a credibility call there that's just really no room on the second one was the smith's thing the petition that's a separate order from allowing counsel was wrong and he dismissed it the state had made all of these arguments the he has to establish why this should be an evidentiary hearing then that's the only place for him to be heard on this petition the petition is filed counsel is appointed leave is granted for  thirteenth correct yes right i am what i'm trying to what i'm trying to point out here is mr allen could have had that opportunity i don't know if he is going to say that or not i mean he would have the opportunity to contest counsel's motion and that's all we're asking for here if he's going to step up and say you know this is what happened then the court's going to have to say well you know i don't know if i should automotive withdraw this is the case and i should thank you i should acquire another attorney to represent you to look at this you know this this problem we have maybe it'll go
and so have you ever been in a courtroom where defendants brought before the trial judge three four five six seven times before their formal charge he's not represented by counsel you know so it's not going to mean trying to work out some complete deal right it's an informal system where they're trying to work out a plea during this initial suhr months or whatever and then they find well we can work it out sooner and die and we're going to shoot have to assume has spoken to his client nothing to indicate otherwise and counsel did something every single time and since we're agreed to put this case over for whatever reason charged him with a felony and i got talking to reducing it or once they charged with the acts i had a singer to a class three or class for whatever it might be so are we saying to defense attorneys we're taking that right away from you your point is this piece of paper was you can only charge that did troops speedy trial but here because defendant agree through his counsel no harm no foul that's basically your argument correct and you
thread and i was somewhat taken aback by your answer that this could just be done they could have just taken the statue and issued an interpreter it seems the medicare costs are offset or not is a pretty substantive and i'm having trouble thinking  payments and medicare payments this unique circumstance needs to be accounted for that is not the case as a consequence to the secretary trying to make a sudden change of absolutely requires notice and comment
she took that into consideration but she has to take the global kitchen will she or she consider what's at stake for the entire commonwealth as a good terms to get out of this very difficult situation  the monitor wanted to ensure performance or to ensure quality is a quality control and is that is that the primary here is the work is substandard i did i mean there are sort of precisely your honor and there's no indication in the record that these projects are not being you know done with sufficient quality or anything like that that's that's pure speculation to say something like that and as you say there are there are mechanisms in place to ensure the quality of the projects hold a claim whatever the reason why they ask for a hearing below they ask are here and below to deal with these evidentiary issues about the costs so this is just a sort of new argument again that's being raised on appeal similar to the claim argument
workers compensation work there is no reason he should not be working today he gets all those databases again to take medication and can't go to work and his child support is practically nothing right now he's paying two hundred sixteen dollars per month number one the financial resources and needs of the child there was no evidence on the financial resources of the child the child in this case did not herself have any financial resources there was no trust that she has no money sitting out there for care as far as her needs are concerned there was no specific evidence regarding needs this special needs or specific needs of the minor child however the court has determined that when a child grows older is presu goes toward supporting herself and raising the minor child the standard of living she's providing is the same as it was when they were married a stadium or a residence she's kept up the mortgage and the records show she worked two jobs to do that certainly got to experience the entire mouthes settlement as opposed to just twenty percent the physical emotional condition of the child and her educational means there is no e cover half of the future politics bases but given his track record on things child support i doubt that that's going to be but that that's really going to happen but it hasn't gotten that we haven't got time for the financial child and they've already escrow twenty percent  daughter goes to college i guess he paid more than half or potentially more than half of the other stuff as well with respect to his physical condition mr lever he cites the employer
concrete interest is where there is a measure of some risk and some real harm so that the person's identity can easily be determined here where you have the it's going to get thrown in the garbage and then someone has the whole it out and presumably it hasn't been affected by this rounding avocados and oranges and everything else is in the garbage you know are we talking about potential for having lost money that was the issue that people were able to collect you know based upon the potential in this case it's a potential case also in the  members i thought it was a reasonable thing for congress or pointed out that there can be circumstances when you have a cause of action that is created by congress but where there is a procedural violation of that statute the worse for any kind of creed injury then there is no standing clear that there is such a circumstance and we believe that this case is that circumstance because what we have here is alleged a statutory violation from the printing of the first six digits but there also because mr comeau kept his receipts they were never seen by anyone else and that is also disputed and that brings us exactly that in the miers decision from the seventh circuit were the exact same the record but it's there actually included as exhibits to the original if i go to be amended complaint i mean it's important to see what's actually going on here to talk about whether there's any incremental additional harm because we  a terrio risk or the second circuit me talk about a degree of risk and that you could have the same facts situation and come to different results depending on which they're here and so why always and come give you any belly to know any information about the card holder as opposed to the card issuer so there is no possibility it's metaphysically impossible for him to be harsh but in the sense that the statu sort of a get out of jail free card for those few of those merchants who couldn't comply with the three year period also between two there's never actually been you know that maybe this is a little overblown there was never actually
what i have to do in this case given the length of time which i have to argue this morning it's to start with what i believe is the most easily ascertainable periods of time and which  well that's what's been quite complicated about this case and my response to that would be your honor is one section of the statute says all theories of  age which specifically says anything in excess of ten days from the date of the order is presumed reasonable and what that section is referring to is to transform of a defendant from an treatment from pleaded transport defendant of law from the u s marshals had notification of that treatment being inflated the request for transportation approximately there's one other point of time that i i believe and i suggest to the court is easily ascertainable and that would be the period of nine april two thousand and one that is when they
anything he thought it was
it's not just the fact that
still snowing why don't you stop trying ticket it's all oh my goodness this is terrible what you say i'm going to me seven years bad luck i just don't want to get away with anything
the petitioner number i case is under the has the burden of proof to prove that the medical expenses are related to the zero five disk and the commission essentially says that was not die off the second part is that cases were consolidated before the locus keris of both cases the first case was not a final decision as you can manage it so we've appealed both this is my first position is that decision of the commission issue first was not  but your position is that if we agree that the ritual commission decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence that was the and were no because there's a second decision made you decide and decision completely different than the first some other issues that are a little bit troubling the commissioner to kulit specific reasons why they ruled against the claimant keys where they felt that the claimant reported no back and had back pain for approximately two weeks after the accident despite several opportunities to do so and they also made the conflicting medical evidence against the claimant they felt they should they gave greater weight to dr munson's opinion then the other doctor what's why can't they do that because of the sex and there's some credibility issues with the climb south no case is perfect right i mean he gave some inconsistent testimony but the important part of the case is what i think the most important thing and i don't know if  said his commission weighs the evidence they can give deference to one opinion over the other which expensed believe they did in the original decision so how does that help you without doing violence to the principle that we don't substitute our government or that of the drove a truck he sat all day he did this for years before yes you notice other injury but after the accident because the reports and it's all the records say that he couldn't do it is pain was an attack when he was exposed to an injury in his attorney's office right he said there for two hours while i had injure anybody but old ok so one of the waiters weeks that was one of the things the commission there was no apparent the commission felt that he would have given this a very nature you're saying that there would have been some symptoms or pain manifesting itself immediately he goes in and see several you know medical providers two weeks go by there's a mention anything about any could mean symptomatic of a symptomatic for two weeks or couldn't that's right so you have nothing in support of your side nor does your opponent think i'm a hitch that's right that's what you still hear of the fact that you didn't report
that well i mean and it's up to the hearing officer you turn credibility the witnesses the way to get their testimony and on review you know that we generally would not reverse those kinds of find domestic abuse incident i mean i'm betting that the violation of the order protection from leave related to the these woman and that prior in
what that shows is that this is the purpose of the statue is because these bullies they pick out their dogs they look for weak bone people and this guy picked out something his psychiatric problems and then tries to go in there say she's crazy works in this case i think that brings up a good point when if you saw the argument that the state made bad we need this case this prior two thousand and six to show that when the defend a lot of sense but then i thought about it for a second and realize this is a meaningless argument because you can make that argument in every single case there is ever going to come  yes of course because once the jury learned that the fire was a child molester they weren't going to consider a lesser offense they were going to consider self defense they were going to consider that this was second degree what is the new prejudice the legislature had a legitimate concern of getting these cases affectively prasad keep it where they were sex crimes under seven point three four domestic violence crimes under seven point four in one fifteen twenty in these cases the legislature is definitely intending that this stuff there may have been held out at one time  talk about the abuse of discretion plus the statute it has to be a very great amount of other crimes have been it's like in the case of cardamom that the scoring not just the book there's a there's also you know the issue of the sexual assault or the attempt sexual assault nature of the court allowed their testimony and direct current white wine limit the testimony to find him guilty is you know this shows he is nasty to the person then he is saying he know he was he saying that can to make sure that the jury understands that this is a bad person who committed the crime but isn't the point can the reasonable doubt that he committed the offense not to prove that he's a bad person yes you're right there fifteen or sixteen year old girl greatly have to do with a violent murder the connection is that when she tried to leav but there's different types of prejudice and we would the state was arguing was this is prejudicial yet this right becomes a no there's two different kinds of prejudice one is let's say somebody of the two thousand six incident went down even further because they went down so far that it almost started by supporting the defendant's case because the jury could make a connection say well
one right time
to sort out what you actually what the judge actually intended to do with these counterclaims and the courts if they don't act now nobody knows why that is probably because the pete was pending it felt like it was appropriate for him after that but the right thing in the  we think to have happened here is if it if if it were to be set back in a wish it before on the substance then the district court can decide whether in fact his judgment or his word was intended to deal with our partners clearly not perspex water kid case i understand obviously what it says but you can't read it just the judgment in a vacuum you have to read it together with were that the judge issue which is the judgment itself says what the court is doing it very quickly that motion sort of moved into a focus or in claim twenty six i didn't see any arguments with respect to anything else and then there was combined
that as the under that circumstance the supreme court's decision louise cover so nobody's making an accusation against i'm just saying you know what they have a right under the slayer's that you want to talk to  luis made it clear the company in monsanto quote had no occasion to opine about the constitutionality of pretrial restraints of other untainted assets but is that that tory when this happened in this case created weeks is there any supreme court decision that tells you what you can do with regard for cannot do with  until well after the
what the lawyers from time to time having said that  change because he's still going to be mandatory lead to po and then he'll be deported no question about but he could have been deported if the state existed charges right way so there's a bit of a benefit he still in the united trial judge overlooked some of the obvious consequences and perhaps what agent in the need to manage your client because i can almost in vision everybody rubbing their hands together because there was one hundred thousand dollars that was going to