MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
we're asking that the judges narrow construction of the act under naca should not be upheld it was irrational arbitrary and we're requesting that  let me ask you questions for always she given proper notice of what the consequences would be if she didn't depart i don't know you on our shores and represented at that time the immigration judge knew very well there was central americans an act that was passed that stated you cancel your motion to reopen we are admitting she didn't leave we're also admitting she should have been in proceedings whether she got any notice or not i think moves away from the central issue is that she filed a motion timely and it should have been granted that she had just put a piece of paper in support and that's what they said i mean i can read it out of this and agree what president clinton asked the attorney general to do he said the purpose of this act is to help these thousands and hundreds of thousands of individuals from central europe and central america class member of the of the a b c agreement as part of the record thank you for the united states the only issue in this case is whether or not the immigration judge properly denied the motion to reopen and the center for elian for a motion to reopen and if you notice an abuse of discretion and in this case there was no  that one becomes ineligible for suspension of deportation that raises the ordonez issue and i can't find anything in the record what kind of for all the warning was given to her and as i read our donors is pretty stringent and so i don't know what to do with that order that was issued by the i g say she was given oral and written notice in fact i think i read or don't even know the whole the written document has everything laid out very strongly written and it's application very strong and that's why i ask you what happens because i am less we missed something from what you said the record for sure is a drawn as if it applies produces a certain result and i'm just wondering what you think that june of one nine hundred ninety nine and she was from el salvador which makes one generally a class member don't have to sort of sequential that well if she is a class member and she registered for benefits which is actually not totally clear from the record that she registered or in bulgaria you have to file it in immigration court and she got that the judge made a narrow construction over here these proceedings should have been terminated before they even began and that's the part of the a
not believe him did they not find that he had a history of problems involving his low back that caused him to seek treatment and then when he went to the doctors we talked to some of them he didn't tell them about the history credibility should or should not be an issue with regard to action but as it sits now i don't know specifically on what basis it was but if we look at the facts if we if we look at the record the the only evidence of actually came from the believe that the evidence of this case does turn on a cause of connection and the commission says that he had a longstanding history of a previous month that prob severe spinal stenosis yes and that's nothing i don't i'm not saying it's nothing but the record indicates he never lost any work around because of this condition ok he also in april six weeks before th are more persuasive than the experts on point is fact the decision it's a close call i agree it's a close call and i understand counsel's aggravation with the decision but the decision is what it is it's based upon evidence of record it's based upon medical testimony and the commission gave reasons supporting their bases for their decisions as is just such some point out and for those reasons y
electrolytic really reducing iron that has been subsequently and healed mean that seems to be the crux of it you say there's absolutely no teaching him or the hydrogen and you know iron has been electrically reduced before it had been hydrogen and healed it seems that up to the public anything anything really that takes place prior that's what you gave to the public and now it's you like you're trying to reclaim them well swedes things did not exist at the time they said the know how to put those two things together certainly existed and there is a book and honeywell page thirteen fourteen of the honeywell decision which is directly on point and this court said foreseeability does way anything other than have to test the way test one two three check one check to check one two three is you can't have bad faith if you have a reasonable belief and if and if in fact you're correct you obviously do have a reasonable feeling that that is absolutely true your honor even if you don't have a reasonable belief reasonableness of the belief isn't enough under globetrotter and become gaming you a need actual knowledge that the statement of false not even a belief that it might be false and that's assuming that you've got objective basis for sense which is you don't even get the subjective benefit from what you do narrower term than just solved so the manufacturer package doxygen observer called malic acid and acid salt and that's a so that's on a thirty to forty three in
licensed dealer in indiana actually they were twenty gun stolen that they crashed a stolen jeep crashed through the front window of the gun store in indiana and however the court finding that there was no mitigation no justification no countervailing arguments for why he didn't deserve the high and that the guy line because the court had every discretion to sentence mr on chando such however the real question i suppose that was lurking behind all of this is what was the because i believe that it was infused throughout the proceedings with this issue of a murder that had been committed now to court white otter of this way to say that she was not going to that goes to the nature i think of the double sentence that goes to the nature of if you're going to explain away the guidelines saying that the guidelines yet they have a question of going upwards or down the court has that discretion to either impose it concurrently or consecutively in this instance one crime he posts impose a consecutively even doing the calculations of how much time he would be serving in state court i don't think that the state court should be controlling in terms of an independent judiciary our district court calculation of how much time he's actually going to serve so th to entering into this which i did i explained to the court that the court at the very beginning before taking th this is not a mandatory consecutive sentences situation and that if you sentence him consecutively at least you know think about the terms that it's completely to explain why it sentenced him to nine months greater than the high end of his after couple guideline range and then said and by the way i'm also going to send you the secondly so i have st written it as an that off the court also talked about the damage that the jeep did to the those are things that are not included in the guideline copulation those are things that the district court took into consideration when it was sense in the defendant about the guidelines additionally the court spoke about the nature of the glorification that followed the theft of these firearms in the posting of these videos to facebook but defenders waving the firearms at the camera with the tax bill attached to it the court looked at all of those things and saw that there were different crimes that were committed and used those factors along with the factors in the guard life sentence the defendant about the guideline range and that is not going to use this discretion when we're talking about the nd part of it the district court
that court and also before this court you have argued that his counter claims were actually much more broad and then therefore summary judgment should not have been entered his kind of claims actually stem from a long thereafter the song was recorded so he did not have a copyright at that particular time he did not file for copyright i believe it was until my team ninety two and that was after rich after driving had entered into its first agreement with buffalo so actually the scope of his counter claims which aren't necessarily artfully played but the scope of that case for formants of artists or other performers or other program material embodied in your insured products or services only for claims based upon allegations of plagiarism unfair competition piracy infringement of copyright or after certain duties that dr been had to pittman and therefore the rights reverted back to pittman both under common law and as a result of his agreement with coll collette also stated that if there was a material breach of that agreement for accountings or something along the that nature therefore the rights all of the rights of the copyright would revert back to him and  that particular issue was still in dispute didn't was still asserting affirmative rights to the fourth circuit court of appeals and therefore those rights even though the court of appeals eventually found hundred ninety seven the only issue was whether a settlement was binding and the fourth circuit has said the settlement was binding and by the time there was a tender to columbia casualty that issue had now been decided the settlement was binding and the only thing being litigated was an attorney for the award against dr king and and even as to that the court had made clear that that the reason attorney's fees were being awarded was because dr its position as the plaintiffs in that drive in request of the carrier being involved but there certainly was no it's if i'm listening to the argument this morning your honor your honor it's but the fact of the matter is there was there there was no issue of common law property  drive in should not have been awarded a jury trial and then we mandate it back to the south carolina district court for instructing the district court to enter a judgment consistent with the fourth circuit opinion it was know the reason i think is because pittman while driving did appeal the entry of attorney's fees him and also appealed to the district court denial of his counter claims against driving i know i understand
four thousand dollars at the beginning plus the lost opportunity which ballooned up to five hundred thousand dollars the arbitrators came in the middle of two hundred and eighty six in the adverse mccarthy case which should show you wrote it was required to monitor the actions of its account representative joel cody and it's all no red flags that good faith on the direct way but also that the plausible basis for the word on the vicarious nothing jill cody did to harm mr ed it was within the course and scope for employment especially because she was mentioned once in a four day arbitration hearing and instead richard codey was the meaning for three and a half years where she was the supervisor of record in was understandable that she did not communicate with mr had to run a single time so her negligence was in failing to do anything in her job so it's a strain to
limitations completely cuts off any federal review at all the trash or limitations work to protect the state's interest and the finality of the criminal judgment however when the state does not  but that whether or not it was waived the state did not affirmatively assert it despite repeated attempts to do so however what is important for a determination of this issue is that a district court did have the authority to allow to sue a sponte raise first time in this court and this court found that it could still address the claim because there was an equitable told me question it said as long as it was even if it wasn't raised in the district court the tolling argument relies on the healthy in eight who suffered no great deprivation of needed medical treatment was able to claim violation of a constitutional right to medical care despite the fact that he never attempted to visit the medical facilities in the correctional facility which we've been talking about and the judge should recognize the possibility of the waiver of the statute limitations on the left open the question that we're dealing with right he dropped the ball and it was a problem in our office but despite that the state contention is that regardless of the state's waiver problem the district court has the authority to sue a spontaneous thing issue and
reaction by the jury in motion a reaction of the evidence for this conviction i submit included unfairly prejudicial evidence that lead to an improper conviction based on emotion
on the scene with the items of the hook but at the trial he said he didn't do it yeah confused with another case which got him fired because of this credibility or other issues as to this case questions to leave the ability to recall us so i wish there was something more to it but again with that aside you still have a person getting out of another motor vehicle rocking up to the second motor vehicle but i want to call it that they communicated maybe the other person was a receptive but they communicated and she did not i did or her and that is i agree the stronger the argument
ordered and in good taste is expressed in the architecture the art the bearing patterns of hospitality in these designs for living there are impressive parallels the rolling countryside of new england people everywhere and certainly one in the love of sport in england its horse race with the added delight of the day in the country there's more gentle pleasure in the boat trip you know the original statue of liberty stands within sight of the eiffel tower the town hall of stockholm in sweden looks across the water at modern structures crisp and clean in line at the link that every youngster in sweden dreams of voyaging the good living is around the world and univers the medieval turn
case but it can set out a new for decision and i look at the statute sixty four seventh's and congress says shall not be deemed arbitrary and capricious that may have the practical effect of controlling what the outcome is because you fall on this case false on one side you have it in the other side of that rule but it reads like a rule of decision  was it was just sort of a fiction i think congress was trying to you know crossed trying to make it look like that it was just following  in the law in this case that for instance by saying the could be the national forest don't you know if you don't have to have a minimum standard for okoth well that would be a change in the loft and it's not only would it states but it would change the forest plan for the given national forest it was changed the way the national forest management act governs the national forest plan and we would not be able to bring another lawsuit on another standards to govern chamber sales and then define geographic region for a specific period of time so anybody that would bring another lawsuit during that period of time challenging believe that you are in compliance with the law here and and and so therefore you know congress was stuffing and performing their congressional function here there's no there is no congressional function that congress cannot look at our soils claim
dollars in cash let's just take that if we were stuck with that fact ok what's the standard of review then interviewing the judges drawing of the inference that he was trying to get his drug money back when he made when he was drug dealing but if that was his personal money that you know this was a big conspiracy he had gotten his share of the profits that his head is if you know to say that well  for anything he does with that money including attempting to our coverage is somehow linked to the conspiracy and furthers the conspiracy reaches too conspiracy the record established by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant took these actions cover drug proceeds and to facilitate the continuation of the on good conspiracy specifically the evidence show
but because they are mom children they listen to me and to the mountain to keep the best of the ideal child start life with just about what his father and grandfather steady aim down the barrel of a rifle when they needed me for the table they came from scotland and ireland mostly kranish people would die humor and gunpowder temper no wonder today's children are close to the old way sometimes very close something they'll always remember the way to remember the easy come rhythm of an old fashioned mountain square  because only when young i try to make them understand that we've got to go along together if we're going to get any our people love this land they mean to stay here until the moms tumble into the ballet but they need no longer be slaves to the market and if they listen to the music  in the song of machine we all know that the highland are a little bit poorer but every child who goes away from  my dream is to make life worth the struggle in the highlands that's raffia easy in my mind when night comes on the mountain and i hear my neighbor singing the old lose and i know a good man is helping me make my dream come true having me or the hearts of the young americans closer and closer to
recommendation to the a fact that the state court opinion in that area was who was arguing craft with one warranted a reasonable reading of the state court affiliation as a motive for crimes in this case so in short there was really no evidence that there is a line of identification was based on the charge to all we have is the is the fact  he provided a detailed description of both the older fellow and the younger fellow including the clothing that the younger fellow was wearing the ethnicity the prosecutor age height are any questions on that issue or any of the other issues we submit on the brief we filed just the court of any additional questions that i wanted to counteract it's not as if he came into court and said yes absolutely person perfectly sure that's the guy who was all over the place we can't and several times even during the trial i only
his testimony and they can be filled with speculation and they said that he did not know who killed his father why he was killed or he did not know the identity of the intruders and that attack they were they were you know  evidence that was provided to show motivation falling under one of the grounds and in the instance in case we believe that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to join her that he w by association because he was always with his father he attended meetings with his father his father was brutally murdered three weeks shortly after believe that that's sufficient circumstantial evidence to demonstrate that he was persecuted on account there's no real other reason in this case for an eleven year old child to be attacked have used think of chopped off there there were according to the petitioner he said that they were looking for a rifle as well and so you know and then they took the money from his person so from the eleven year old boy as taking money from him but there is nothing to indicate that he said anything to them that they said anything to him to connect him to a political opinion or any imputed to local opinion and the immigration judge was very clear that she said i just there's so much of a gap here that i just cannot fill in with speculation that would be wrong to do and the petitioner does not contend that  looking for the documents and whether you think it's revenge or punishment it may be right raised or rice a level past persecution on account of either imputed opinion or member in the social group and at least you've got the certainly  logical reason for the persecution at issue in this case i don't see any other logical reason for an eleven year old to be brutally attacked and threatened and told that they would come back and told them to produce you see and document
the record specifically twenty five twenty seven one sixty nine and one eighty eight during the hearing of june thirteenth two thousand and five judge rielle misstated the facts and the parties thing was plaintiff who was making you serious claim right on the defendant as a matter of fact the chastised the plaintiff when it was directed to record the come up was i've read the record go on during the same hearing it was more to the detention the vendeans were failing to cooperate or participate in federal rules will receive twenty six f judge rielle indicated that i've encouraged the attorneys to follow the rules but need specific point  paragraphs twenty five exhibits were representing four distinct cause of action that stepped forth in the record at forty three through forty eight at the time the complaint was served discovery was conducted depositions were advantage you have to have an independent contract that's interfered with the third party you have to have or at least you have a third party action generally for example you can say well i'm a member of a corporation the corporation has a third party you interfere with with  corporate rights because you're there's no third party involved it appears to me that here you're arguing that a corporate officer can be or corporate number can interfere with someone else's members prove any set of facts to support it so what are the facts that would be proving that you think show up which to do serious duty you know when a movie had soundtrack rights were  mutual understanding and your ninety seven one hundred one twenty six and one thirty six whereby there was a payment to a non party to the contract which was owned by the so you wrote your complaint characterizing it as an investment and later on it came out that was being treated as a loan that your argument well that was true discovery we found that information out your hon notice that would enable him to in fact defend the complaint it doesn't it doesn't set forth any series of facts in our view that gives him that noticed that that indicates what the duty is what your duty pro an interest in it surely and i mean for all we know when perlstein sold the movie and soundtrack rights i add up the price it's all for that you know maybe maybe that could prove they should have been sold for much more so he would get something out of this you know it's just i noticed pleading standard so i don't see that complaint has to prove the facts if you move for summary judgment and you've submitted affidavits justifying what mr pearl's thing did and i could see that you know that there might or might not be an issue of good one but i didn't think this complaint rose even to that level where it indicated that pearlstein failed to exercise due care when he stole the property and that in fact the property could have been sold for money that would have in fact engender