MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
factors involved here you know are we really the reality trying to go off into a fantasy land what about this and what about that i mean if the district judge if we reverse the been with intent to sell to d well he's i mean you know i'm still smarting from hearing from the th circuit murder is not a crime of violence washington state ok you know and radical basis that didn't have anything to do with the facts of the case why are we talking more about what the facts are here because that's precisely what mathis prohibits your honor mathis is very very clear that you respect are we really balanced by what they say what role do they play in our no engaged now and with respect to application no one i think our our position would be that will understood is only under our the application no here is controlling  and i just want to make the point that application no one the what we're talking about here is a very large application oh there's nine paragraphs any and all those days that we were talking about dealt with attempts dealt with in code offens in the guideline itself and that attempts by putting that by putting the attempt in the commentary the commission was going beyond the text of the of the guideline itself here you don't have that problem and it's for that very reason a controlled substance of bans in and actually foresee contacts you controlled substance offense a completed controlled substance and it is already a part of the or in krauss in rio's in man all of those cases that came out of this circuit lists the specific predicate offense as one of the elements that the government would have to prove and your honor even in even in the courts for this sport in other circuits have treated the underlining it of as an element if you treat the underlying offense as an element then you apply the modified categorical approach and you look at the underlying offense here we respond very quickly to one of judge last makes comments again i can certainly understand your contention frustration with this but one thing i think the court needs to pay attention to is that the guidelines tried to do exactly what you're you're feeling it's why do comedy if you're feeling by introducing an amendment which would have instructed the course actually look at the facts rather than elements to to look at the facts on the lying and try and figure out what the opinion i believe when they talk about if they can be charged in one count which is what happened here which is what happened in a number of other cases and it is not duplicitous and the jury does not have to be unanimous that is a very very strong indication
benefit he may be barred from discretionary relief under section one of six f of the immigration and nationality act however if you like in order to avoid embarrassment for the shame of having his children and not sure that quite answer the question what what evidence in the record besides the statement was there was nothing right that well the fact that he would not just naturally bargain isn't this conviction doesn't change the fact that it goes towards showing that he was a person at that mark after the court held in congress that the primary six actually living it's a burden of proof but i think the burden of proof is an alien at all times to certainly also not burden of proof i understand that it in the terms of this issue you don't have to it's not coming on t must be compelled to conclude that that he in fact was not lying for the purpose of any immigration benefit and i think certainly given the fact that he told a story that was basically in which was completely innocent the fact that he was just trying to plead guilty to make enough money to support his family was really kind of himself in a good light to show that he was a person of good moral character and so it's not enough for the question ok thank you thank you don't think the government really made an attempt to refute that they sort of just dismissed that because that's you know well he's he's just saying that but i think that they had to present something on the on the record which route would and she never really came out and said why shouldn't accept the apology she said like well i found that that he was doing this to get the immigration benefit you think he needs
that we're not asking this court to decide this question or issue that seems to be and i'm on everybody's minds we're asking the court to decide the constitutional issue of due process because of the circumstances with the mother and the grandparents there is no way that this child will ever be able to have any relationship whatsoever with his father the grandparents and the mother and their relationship didn't work out unfortunately but they do allow him to if the child him the reason that the meets i believe the exceptional extreme hardship standard which i think i agree this mother and this is the grandparents particularly who are raising the child now will not allow this person to the daughter to the to go down to mexico with this gentleman sent back to mexico there's no way that this gentleman will be able to come back to united states that were are you make any what's happened to her father totally in voluntarily he didn't come crawling across the border when he was two years old he was brought here totally innocent strands of whole life here goes all the way through school is a is a high school graduate it is the kind of someone who spent his whole life here came here innocently in his finished high school education that's when the essentially the same is for ontario departure and in that case they just went and i think you are clever and granted a voluntary departure with the government opposed are just doing that and cleaning it
to what needed to be done and it was it was to find again the same error happened again how does that happen i don't have a good explanation your honor the government did request a twenty four months a insane papers at the age twenty or the record but i agree it was never clarified at the sentencing hearing i don't know why the error happened it should not have happened so i have no good explanation or your honor the most i can say is that  to the extent the court is going to apply a waiver here and i don't assume the court would want to do something requested arguments on this issue i would say there was no prejudice that resulted from this error so i take it from the even if both sides fail to bring it to the attention of the trial judge if we just let this slip then there will be that a bunch of cases where we have to say well the judge didn't do what we told them to but now we have to figure out whether or not it really matters it seems to me as a matter of judicially the stray should we need to correct this so when perhaps your honor and i want to press too hard on this issue the only thing i would say is that if the court is inclined to that you can issue the instructions you deem appropriate on remand so i don't know that there's any are to the court allowing that but again i don't know that there's any reason to do so though here's here's let me let me give you a reason  if you can respond to it i don't know whether the district judge was just merely being nice to defense counsel sometimes that happens but he seemed to indicate that he would seriously consider reducing the said this on count one if only modify a term of imprisonment once it has been in those accept and then it lays out certain exceptions like action and release or ministerial errors things that undisputedly don't apply here so i think the this case has so that's why a case like for example killington doesn't apply here because it was addressing a motion to the courts is perfectly allowed on three man to reconsider motion there's no statutory bar to that here you do have an express statutory are preventing the court from reconsidering its sentences in addition to the actual mandate where the court expressly affirmed that so i think the appropriate approach here is simply to hold that your
the ranch owners the ranch owners and the owner of this beach house had sort of an understanding that the the ranch managers would check on the beach how often they knew someone was living in there probably called the local authorities the why county police department and  manager they recovered items belonging to the defendant including the firearm that was subject of this prosecution so essentially what he does even tries to suppress the search of course the standard being whether he has a subjective  to and essentially i mean that's that's the issue of it one of the things that we talked about is that this was a plea on sort of the eleventh hour after the second issue that we're going to get to that has to do with  stand by attorney as a pro se he sort of just wanted to call every witness that you could think of that would have to do with some sort of at least personal belief that he had a right to be on this land i'm not necessarily ever getting to the n that when you're actually taking up and breaking into and living in someone else's residence now as the as the burglar as the you know the criminal in all this whether that is something that society's prepared to recognize as reasonable  and i think i think of the panel which is to hold i think that would be an extension of the law and i think it would it would run contrary to what the supreme court's decision in radius when they went through looking at and we're going to get into that that characterization distinction and that is when they looked at a criminal and whether the criminal had a right to their you know search and stolen car they actually used as an example of burglar plier applying is crazy to put labels  when someone cuts the lock of the front door of my residence or a very central part of door and then takes them living there i think that person has committed a crime he's committed a burglary under most state law and and i might be being too broad like calling him a criminal whether the district court can properly impose a supervised release that's what they're looking at that point they can't challenge the individual condition that is the mandatory drug testing the mandatory monitoring of these that's why i tried not to
needs to address this evidence and either accept it or reject it and it's particularly important because in this case the l j found that due to plaintiffs were aligned intellectual functioning she can only do simple routine work which generally means that well light duty encompasses a range of different things one of the implant of the requirements is that you can lift twenty pounds occasionally in ten pounds frequently but in addition are treating doctors said that she can only reach occasionally and that i or any doctor completes one of these forms he says what you can do it's not just how much you can left but whether you can push pull left use your hands over and over again for fine movements and hurt treating doctor did fill out such a  the reason it's so important is he found she can only do simple routine work which is by definition repetitive and it's going to be physical using your head and doesn't necessarily need to reach into it depends on the limitations were not presented to the work requires a lot of use with your arms or she could be do some different kind of job if he wasn't finding that she can only do routine simple repetitive wear then it would be a different story may be that she would be able to return to work at least in terms of her psychiatric sentimentality later this year and that's at page thirteen of that opening thieves and he are one ninety one now they l j construe this opinion just say that she could work and that would be able to work meaning even though she is just even though she does have limitations in simply intellectual functioning aside from her psychological problems those wouldn't keep her from working  for well over a year and he's not sure that it's going to stop this is if these numerous things happen and there's no truth in the record subsequent to that that they have so the a l j misrepresented this opinion when he stated to say the pla to her hands or any shoulder or upper extremity impairment she testified that she was able to do keyboarding for four hours a day with no difficulties while attending training she reported hobbies that included fishing reading drawing tools could be found at expert of record one thirty nine through one forty four her mother who provided the third party statement indicated that she plays cards that she does needlework also testifies that  of the opinion that this person would be able to return to work within a few short months of obtaining proper therapy and medication treatment and management doctor schneider was an examining psychologist too so th
paragraph you know it's in  fifty five inches like fifty four now so what with this case is all about is simply the timing of the commit commit smaller for retirement benefits on the market martin retirement plan so there's no insurance company involved
trial not guilty there's no way to secure his right to a valid and i mentioned a valid grand jury proceeding and that is because the grand jury was not presented with the issue of whether or not a person is there any question factually as to whether or not the alleged victim wasn't back in india and that my my premise is that he was not that's the reason this issues here right now i don't think that there is in question with respect nature involves not only a mere special for interpretation but also the broader constitutional implications dealing with the federal government's relationship with the various indian tribes and their members  so for those reasons as well as the fact that it also involves the validity of the grand jury proceedings and it is in fact an important question and it is a question that if it has because in this case what we're talking about more is the validity of the grand jury proceedings and in fact the validity of whether or not there was probable cause to even entitled the invalidity would be because an element of the crime was not included in the right and so one has a constitutional right for a grand jury to find probable cause before and i meant and the grand jury necessarily does not find probable cause because they don't find all the elements of the crime and in fact weren't presented with necessarily has to be viewed as redundant because obviously indian persons are persons and so on but there are nine there and there are institutions other than persons there are for example government agenc person referred to errol louis says that governmental entities are out of the ambit perhaps human beings other than indians qualifies as any other persons there is a distinction drama distinction is drawn not between indians and other human beings with beings and non human entities and i think the way i would view it is that there'll be made some more narrow decision to say thank you corporation or a governmental the united states needs to allege and i guess or alternately prove for a charge on eleven fifty three that the victim is an indian person so it's kind of jurisdiction that the ethnicity of the victim does not need to be alleged does not need to be proven it can be either one it could be an indian person or a nonunion person and that's that's basically what they are holding and i knew a case was
develop the record as it should he just didn't care when i took it up to the appeals council and mentioned splits in the case back so they can be developed and there'd be no further action on it if peels i wouldn't think there would have been any further action so the sole issue is was the commissioner's position justified we say no because the commissioner developed because it's not i mean i mean but if if if it had been ultimately her position was correct from the beginning the only question ever there was ever involved in this case is whether or not how dish had been preserved reasons mentioned by the just record and it's probably the primary reason i can see that ok so it doesn't sound like a very complicated issue i mean i think the answer may not may or may not be clear from reading the record and reading the as to what you have to do and what the a l j is responsibility is and developing a record which may be more a legal issue than anything else i think that that phrase would it goes into the something in a normal lawsuit you may mention an issue and it may not be sufficiently raised here you have a lower standard if the a l j has an obligation to develop and then raising the issue mention of these other benefits received that this was an issue that might affect the outcome of the case rather well certainly what are termed a lot of litigation if the government's position at the onset of it all right let's
process that occurred before the board of immigration appeals and before the immigration court essentially mr castro was was before an immigration judge that was that the evidence authority the judge found the presumption of hardship which is in the car which is part of the car statutes of legal presumption fonso been rebutted by the fact that he had a father in guatemala the same father who abused his mother residency however that this individual had a legal presumption on his side in the judge's rebuttal his logic was illogical to say the least in fact the judge the judge in essence stated that he character determination which the judge found difficult for me given the fact that your client had murdered someone amounts to a showing of judicial bias why why isn't that just inher there is a standard that he has to go through in discretion it's under a matter of c v t the judge to not balance the judge basically said you have all these positive equities but you know you you you were responsible the deaths are some body and you're not going to be considering any of his crimes i believe your honor that the judge has to look at the fact whether or not this person was legally capable of committing those crimes and the fact that he was placed in the youth authority made is and is in ms right now how would you distinguish our decision and the montero martina's which i think is relevant to this issue although as i recall in that case we were confronted with a legal issue of whether or not a person with a minor
this court to make that policy the issue here is very simple whether the trial force dismissal of my client the home inspector can be sustained on either of the two principal grounds got a hundred seventy five dollars which is typical of a burger on basis other cases that are cited in our brief were simply a service is being offered and accepted and not a hearing to be of the structural quality until several days later defendant was solely responsible for her dad said things like like man i did not kill this woman he's not guilty of murder yet this murder charge is hanging over his head case many think there why the supreme court might have been you know confused and misunderstood the law scout master which interestingly enough was decided by a just who then sat in the appellate division for the workers compensation commission and i believe they still do  suggests that this is really going you know i mean you have somebody situation where the award is in fact at the worst for life the simplest explanation is often the best explanation the checks keep coming and the benefits theory doesn't lawyers in our office about ellison or agree and i know that there has been some issue about there's also going to be forty relating to i mean don't you would you have a duty of those systems attorney general or just as a crime again you just told me that day that you were aware and you're off with aware that checks were signed by a person that was already d
actually is admissible because there is a presumption they told the crowd good take the objections with the deposition was are we to presumed them the trial judge normally follows the law in the evidence now evidence because the instructions we were given each of the jurors said they followed the law at the end of their deposition and there's a presumption they followed the jury instructions and they got i p i criminal one on one which said they couldn't consider that since all  now because there was a disclosure to all of the jurors of prejudicial information because one juror deliberated throughout with pretty good stuff more he's deliberations one thing that complicates his record was your point there the judge has went into the middle deliberations of the jury right of course you submitted depositions that had that in there without objection and ask him to consider go actually i think it's a great question both sides did because they both made the same objection and neither of them asked for a ruling and now we've got a record with at some point i may ask both of you what actually is admissible evidence because the instructions we were given each of the jurors said they followed the law at the end of their deposition and there's a presumption they followed the jury instructions and they got i p i criminal one on one which said they couldn't consider that since all it's now because there was a disclosure to all of the jurors of prejudicial information because one juror deliberated throughout with pretty good stuff more this case was closely balance  look at how he decided this case and you'll see he absolutely blew off on the fact that you don't go into the process but certainly back to the media cases those cases lieberman is still hot were cases fairness he's deliberations one thing that complicates his record was your point there the judge has went into the middle deliberations of the jury right of course you submitted depositions that had that in there without objection and ask him to consider
this case is a nation ninety three murder conviction out of out of massachusetts and it's been around and has been up and down to this court in the spirit court several times depositions of all of the district attorneys of the tom disclosed word that these items existed that there was one be able to do that there was discussions with the prosecutor in oregon in three discussions that said you should to consider any of those arguments defendant no other than that he came to his friend's apartment with money and cocaine shortly after the crime and admitted the next day to one of his friends and he was involved in  about the fact that he didn't get it we were induced well i think throughout this case and in through discovery you depositions there is never really has never been able to show that there was an actual agreement with regarding his testimony yes i mean it was it was brought out to the jury during cross examination and he was indicted for murder charges for murder they attempted to get in the fact that he had other charges in oregon but the judge didn't allow that in a trial because we're going charges came after his initial statement and the oregon charges again came after the statement that he had made initially and he was that was consistent with this trial testimony and there's no evidence that the actually new there may have been some conversation between the massachusetts prosecutor and th ski that he will cooperate with the government in change for favorable treatment or again i don't think that there's no evidence of that occurring that he made an agreement with the prosecutor that i will testify  maybe i don't fully understand how we will think about brady so you have a certain amount of evidence that wasn't disclosed yes and let's say that quantum of evidence itself isn't obviously on its own home prejudicial but if you had it on here which is essentially sort of what he did i mean basically he was sort of the come on argument to him as he was cross examining produces so the significance of it he was that if the theory was they must have
of the murder he said that he would do everything he could to avoid being charged for the murder so