MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
were questioning her about her brother and that her brother disappears i didn't see anything you could probably correctness but i didn't see it in the record that indicated they were after her individually application within one year of her vital in the united states first of all i would just like to state the respondents objection to the petitioner this morning raising new arguments that were not raised before the immigration judge before the b a a or in fact in the petitioners  documents and filed with this court that the immigration judge should have suspended her hearing and done an investigation after she had a further opportunity to bring her original documents second i would just like to point to eleven fifty eight eight i believe that the government's in a document referring to was restating the date that she provided and her asylum application it was at all times so burden under the statutes demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence to the immigration judge that she arrived within one year the immigration judge then properly considered all the evidence before him in determining whether she had established that and met her and by clear and convincing evidence in this case she had only her own testimony she had no stamp on any passport because she she entered under a different passport even though the passport which she provided a copy of was issued four months before she alleges she arrived in the united states and she then had no further crabbe aeration her entry date including an affidavit or live testimony from the family she had failed to apply within the one year time limit and was just contesting whether or not given those undisputed facts whether she appropriately found within an exception because of changed circumstances that's not the case here  believe that there is substantial evidence that supports that credibility determination first of all the immigration judge just stated that her descriptions of the arrest in the treatment simply did not add up that there were inconsistencies within the testimony and again that it was impossible given the country condition reports and given her own testimony about her mother and her sister second of all her testimony regarding her identity as there were multiple explanations offered at the hearing as to why she cannot bring a passport passport with her for turning at one point
continuation of the same policies that she believes was the basis of her persecution so in other words when we point that tool making certain findings those findings were statement at the end i don't think that that goes to the heart of what he's actually decision was i mean it was basically finding that because of what he believed to be the real inconsistency in her testimony we were pointing out is that he was wrong factually on that point because the party continued in power through the ramos regime presidency from ninety two until ninety eight  so when the court on page twenty two said the court finds those competent private credible evidence submitted by the service as to a change of country conditions in the philippines that was the basis by  their determining that because of that change in the country conditions because of the change in the presidency just as ramos was the one of the people who her for another six years so the period during which she complained and her persecution in her village during the period continue
indicates that where an individual has lived in the united states for more than two years that individual should be given some type of administrative hearing to determine  because that provision specifically addresses valid agency procedures and if an individual is removed pursuant to valid agency procedures in this situation it doesn't appear that the well i believe that the agency does not have law currently of size because of the cars that i thought i would be precluded if she were forced to return to mexico at this point because she had been outside in the country for more than one year she would there and he she can if she is able to have her face terminated as no longer technically removal case will be able to adjust your status in the united states like you know i i understand your view on th amend it i believe that there's an equally possible argument to be made that congress felt there was no need to amend it simply because the good moral character statute at eleven o one s three has a catchall provision that says even if you don't fall within doctors which was the former section eleven eighty two a not under accepted standards now there's a possible argument to be made that those those persons would fall within the discretionary language to catch all provision and so it was more important for congress inadmissible to the united states because she was previously removed and she said to me enter within five years without seeking the attorney general's prior approval that was the ticket to why she was given the two forty proceedings not because of her equit disclosure from attempting to be entered even more times after that so that there would be that bar in place as well if the removal order was issued pursuant to that and charging them of ability and as to the arguments that she against cruel and unusual punishment all of that would apply but with respect to their right to being admitted to the united states the rationale is they might as well be standing in england or france and seeking opportunity to come then there's simply no extraterritorial you know when the red light is on the clock is changing numbers it's measuring how much overtime you
will take the cases for oral argument in the order in which they appear on the calendar the first case for oral argument is crap so versus alameda counsel believe they talked about the crime and i answered i just it was a crime committed for the benefit and what crime was that the prosecution was asking about they didn't specify i mean they didn't have any doubt in your mind what the crime was when the with the intent to kill it had everything to do with whether he had the intent to commit the crime for the benefit of a little tr
there anything that requires the judge to analyze and for like what you're asking for the details each of the thirty five fifty three factors i do believe that the court is required to provide justification different then analyzing each of the thirty five fifty three factors and looking at the transcript here judge karen a can whip through each of the factors and it was clear that the seriousness of the crime and general deterrence and respect for well dealing with these one of those factors in turn and i think we have issues with regard to the general deterrence as it goes to our second issue which has inadequate consideration so that is one of the factors in which the defendant sat fact that your client had lied to the f b i at the airport and he had been notified by a friend about about a friend's arrest yet continued that his parents had tried to deter him from engaging actually has certain feelings about terrorism he calls it the most serious offense in all offenses and talks about it in generalized terms other points in the transcript but with regard to add i would say that concerned about the length of supervised release given that it was it was part of the race or missile range here when you raise that in the district court we do i think i'm not asking the question as to just kind of waiver but when the lifetime of factors which may be considered but the nature and circumstances of the offense are appropriately considered when it comes to the way include supervised release and the nature of circumstances of this offense or material  it like about the potential harm that can be caused by the circumstances and the nature of this kind of terroristic activity and and consider those and in the context of supervised release that translates into what is critical for supervised release which shares the importance of protecting the public that you go to those factors as well as rehabilitation so to consider i think just say you can't consider seriousness  point out that well it is definitely not the government's position at all that the defendant in any way waived or forfeited the challenge to the term or supervised release they definitely raise that what to say that was a principle or the defendant filed dealing with the specific the court invited consistent with this court's orders to get commentary specifically by the parties about the conditions of supervised release and the term of supervisory and in that in particular in that set the record page document eighty three pages to the defendant suggest that the length of supervised release be a substantial term less than life for example ten years and requested in the alternative between give them a really long term a supervised release and maybe a sentence i mean i understand all of that logic behind it but as presented to the court the arguments all of the arguments in their papers in their positions before the court
not rely on that they are conclusions of others what's wrong with having three or four different people to citizens and two police officers who have all looked at the pictures and the description that was given to the magistrate of kids having refers to another young female which i think fairly rare it can be implied to mean another young child so what can that some holiday of the circumstances council what more does the fourth amendment require we're not proving proof beyond a reasonable schroeder and reinhard dressed exactly the same language almost identically with police officers in a case called car net nine hundred ninety nine and west lost three six two three nine seven that case involved juveniles engaged in explicit explicit sexual acts with adults what the court found there was that absence any descriptive detail and let me back up there's a presumption that i believe smith creates and sort of the first circuit recognized in reading this course a story that if the pictures are readily available and there's no doubt they were because compensate for the lack of the pictures and self will now we get back to the question as to the form time and where what more is required if the description is kids having sex one of the kids is described as eighteen years of age the from the description not granted it may not have been written by a lawyer it was written by a police detective but why can't under illinois versus gave the judge look at that and conclude what a common sense substitute for the photographs council if we were close to the age of eighteen there might be some marginal question but surely as people we we rely on our common sense to determine when we have a child between the ages of eight and ten that's very different from a young second picture showed another young female having sexual intercourse with an adult male that is sufficient to establish pro prohibited photographs precisely where are the the words sexual intercourse are sufficient years old is followed about eight words later by the words another young female having sexual intercourse with an adult and i think at that point there's just not much for the court to do because it's clear that the the warrant was issued on a i can read the facts of the opinion no explicit acts involved in that particular case that anywhere close to sexual intercourse as alleged in the search warrant application and so i think it's clearly doesn't apply on  activity or intercourse between children and adults that's clearly prohibited by the statute words if we're dealing with a photograph involving a list of us display of a naked girl in a bathtub that may or may
show a constitutional violation deliberate indifference requires a sufficiently culpable state of mind which the undisputed facts and the record show was possessed by none of the defendants who are before this court i think i'll skip over the part up to the point when the writ was issued because i think we can all agree that certainly there was no deliberate indifference prior acts that time at that time september seven when supreme court issued its order that marked the date as the district court found when the prison would have had fair warning that mr nelson sentences should have run concurrently when j supervisor of the records department which has seven employees and is responsible for the records of twenty eight hundred inmates as this court well knows inmates frequently file petitions contesting the nature  it was a little bit confusing because the supreme court really mandated the case to the sentencing court there's no order that clearly established it has a right to immediate release it goes back to the sense in court the lawyers or the think in this case the actions of diana live in or coerce the attorney for the department of corrections really aren't before the court and finally the actions of mr nelson himself are relevant in determining what is injective
oh god damn  go that red blooded red faced red headed he man of the west the mightiest force paper in captivity we have smoke oh boy looks like i look still
limitations began running then alexander's petition would actually be timely filed you know kind of to him early to you so i think you substantially against you personally think that case was possibly wrongly decided but i also think that it controls that aspect of your so you're going to have to persuade just otherwise or maybe you should concentrate on incredible succeed then go forward and give a hearing but if there isn't any chance to succeed if it's going to lose in any event i have a hearing that's kind of where we are in it i'm not so i'm not i'm not suggesting that you want to know the just standard review for the motion of this mess but the standard review on this particular matter as i understand it is there's no sense to have a hearing if it's going to be futile at the end of the hearing anyway correct really allege as a relates to the case law as you allege that he was i mean i've looked it is allegations i've got him here so i want to make sure that we have this down told him that it was one way different than what it would have been i mean now my worry is that if he's making the allegation that he wanted case law and he didn't get case law i think we have adequate precedent suggest he ought to have a chance to get the case law but if he's alleging as i read his equitable stoplight allegation that when he asked for and he got a legal opinion that thereafter was wrong because if i look at the order of the california prison and i look at what they ordered him to be able to have and i know well that he had the paralegal plus secondary references and if he can get any of the information that he was allowed to have there's no question he could if he sought it he could give the information he needs to make the right to terminations but the problem is when i read his allegations he doesn't say that he says when i ask for information the clerk gave me information that was wrong now and therefore i ought to have something well that i don't believe requires an evidentiary hearing because the clerk acting as a legal advisor is not somebody he should have been able to and that's why i want you to comment about that what allegation are we really after that he based on th think in my book reading the higher record i see an allegation he asked for information but then was given advice and didn't seek the information he easily could have gotten in order to confirm  deny the advice now that i don't think it's worth hearing so i'm looking for the allegation goodly i don't know how to say that case the second word that he has to show diligence he doesn't even show diligence in this case because he waited by his own admission very close to the time he knew that there was a statue limitations that he waited a long long time
contact falls under the requirement that the crime involve physical force but over let's just get right to the core that first of all i don't see how you could contend that any offense of touching is the
you know that just is it just destroys it all and so that i don't have to but if the principal or one of the teachers see somebody loaded on campus don't want yes the system rejected them they can really go to school because he didn't feel confident to go to school so they're just saying ok well you know i'm going to be a loner and do my thing the best way i can he loves that  most of the guys are dealing with here like any other community does that that they've been lied to so many years behind the use of marijuana and then lied to and like you so that when they do try and they buy up it is not as harmful to them and that they've been all of he said to me was you know you really my friend and i said to him i said don't bet on it but i didn't really hear him i merely heard some words and meant nothing but when i thought about later he was up i'm not concerned with myself
that's not our number one eight one seven two seven five staples crosses richard jerry at all up is a way of saying i'm not a snitch exactly so just so i get your house and then the officer had no there's no way you read the record in any indisputable way where the officer really thought he qualified immunity which would just be given the role of clarity that the law would have to have about what types of reactions are enough to engender a response and what are the why would we be able to just say in this case that it less about some a for the defendants to drop by then whipping up the paper is enough to justify being briefly pushed against our own handcuffs especially when the officer doesn't have familiarity with me and me when the inmate who is defying orders and ripping up the paper is not handcuffed and is coming to this order from maximum security it is a reasonable approach and beyond intent as to both claims and making the argument in the alternative to what the trial court found that move at this point that died here because there were cameras in those cells and he had a history of making improvised alcoholic beverage and would make it in such a way that it couldn't be seen from outside of the cells of a bonnet and on camera that's why they chose
to then there was this extra either six to thirteen minutes depending on how you considered the traffic stop since the officer the trooper testified that his typical citation period was ten to fifteen minutes that extra if it was ten minutes that he delayed addiction thirteen minutes as opposed to when he entered the citation which would have given you the extra six minutes or so what he had at that point was  these from the beginning has moved to suppress all evidence tapes seized from all of the different stops and that was what the motions press and i will transcript that's included in the joint appearance as well as the video itself where they have this conversation and my argument is that there was no reasonable suspicion with these initial circumstances to justify which would then result that everything after that was was illegally seized and tainted and should be suppressed and then with regard to the kid a restart in terms of the basis for standing as opposed to the fact that they were stopped in a parking lot he comes up and he takes the driver's license walks off with it and then there is no evidence that that was ever returned to him to the numbers on the front of the cards and if those numbers then matched up with illegal purchases or if those cards were used for illegal purchases i know that there's my client is subjected to just take the face of the card how do you know whether it's fraudulent or not so if it is because it's my understanding is that if there if there's an issue with the numbers not being completely mashed up with when they numbers how to determine if there was a but for the other ones that's the only way they tell that these cards as i understand it i mean my sister can correct me if i'm wrong on that but that's that's how they determined that there was something wrong with these cards because otherwise how how do they know that it's it his name is on the  resolve this question one is there's no reason for tyshan of the information on the strip therefore the search of the information is no problem alternatively only a reasonable suspicion to do a search of the information on the strip you say there's reasonable suspicion a third store which is you do the search and find out that it's information that's the bigger deal therefore was ok to do the search on i think the investigators and those who are well versed in this know that the information at least currently there may be years down the line where it gets considerably more private inscribed there and you match it up to the vehicle registration documents to see if it matches it's just a comparison of matching numbers at least in this case and on the  suspicion of some credit card fraud but in fact we have a whole bunch of credit cards at all and one person's name which suggests it's unlikely they are
know is in your brief but your brief does not respond to one point that i want to raise with you now is on page seven of the government's brief it makes reference to the statement of undisputed facts  relative to the other members of the product marketing group and according to what the government says that particular proposed undisputed fact was left undisputed  so if you are caught by surprise on anything that said we'll give you back some of your time
where they where this court reversed and remanded for the state to have an opportunity to retry her after finding that police had used the question st or indeed later technique to obtain involuntary confession from her so in between form of probable cause or something they could have called a witness or an officer to come in and try to testify that they elected not to do so because it's already gone back once you know clearly the out this is had an opportunity litigated it but the evidence they can't rely on because of any statements and even though they're brief they argue that they were that there were comments made in the beginning of the of the car that should have justified you know they could that could have allowed t fact arrested when she was in the car there were no there was no attempt by the state to argue that there was any sort of intervening circumstances as to her statements that were made in that car so for these reasons it can't be can be used so there's really nothing out the two most important factors although there are four or certainly whether or not there were intervening circumstances and the places in this conduct illegal statement from s could yet apply so therefore both of those the most important factors in