MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
was actually doing it that way and the translator was translating what he said on your honor i am not trying to make a big issue about the translator i think that even in the other transcript there's guy is all kind of stories but he doesn't have any details he doesn't see any time you ask a detail he's a lot on about that he doesn't know anything he he lived it but he doesn't have any details about and he's got interference from the judge and guardian in which here in los angeles judge made a number of sarcastic remarks and the court reversed him because i just don't i would i would urge that there really is no real closures for civic reading about demeanor except for the fragmented manner of speech and for instance there's a there's a word to use for his family relationships and  his response to that is one of my brother if you doubt the follow up question is one of your brothers a tiger did you answer to that into not my brother but he came and took me to the bunker well what's an immigration judge supposed to do with well i i'm saying that in conjunction with the meeting well i'm calling the demeanor finding in conjunction with a lack of detail with regard to certain other aspects and in conjunction with the fact that the immigration judge noted that he doesn't provide any sort of problem ration with regard to the treatment that he would have allegedly received although he had persons that he was living with for approximately six months after the treatment that could have committed some sort of connection between the other people and i'm single and he managed to leave it put the country after that amazing revelation within about two days which is fairly unusual too is that he doesn't know how
if a reasonable police officer would have no reason to suspect that his conduct was wrongful under the circumstances the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should be applied  officers present at the accident they discovered evidence and turn it over to the kentucky police so it's clear that you know ron officers also believed that kentucky was responsible so they were operating on his famous
included within its reach a place to rail as i understood the plea hearing it didn't really narrow the statutory language much at all right he just said it really shot of the year the only change from the statute  fields within the city limits that would that come within the statute that would come within the approve of that or not and sometimes whether it's lawful or not but there are circumstances even within the city like shooting a firearm does not represent a serious potential risk of physical injury if the shooter and in fact  i thought that we have to look at whether there's a realistic probability you know not just a theoretical possibility of how a statute of this may answer that question and reserve some time i would have a much weaker case he wouldn't be here today with you i don't believe i would it would help that he had mentioned whether it was occupied or not and whether in the direction of a car  but if you shoot a roller skates you would know there's not a person inside roller skates on the corner of the lot so i guess that'll nor a bicycle how this court said urban areas are by definition more guns fully populated the world accordingly the serious potential risks inherent in shooting in a building within the city limits and qualifies this particular organ  conduct involving but that you can't say that so you have to look like and even your brief goes past is right over categorical and goes to the modified look that particular conduct is addition here with the shooting at a vehicle restrict city limits it also says that the shooting has to be at a structure of a building or vehicle within the range of that weapon and so that actually contradicts that argument so if someone is being foolish enough to shoot at something that
reason why the state has even the appearance of an argument in this case is it is the basket on day four of his confinement the state voluntarily surrender mr mosley to federal  state police agency that picks up someone on probable probable cause is not going challenge in a hearing and has the good sounds to go t
five years old and he's suffering from problems that's different all you say is he's five years old and they said so what people have five year old children was a get there were some standards one of them a fine and she's going to follow the majority opinion which we call the law or the opinion of the court that's correct and on page
hundred seventy one so the power factor correction is highly desirable and that we have the highest power factor this one if you're on one of unity but it's also called the perfect power factor so this we look just looking at what the board cited which was spirograph sixty four of the mit yep aeration are so low they talk about one sentence i guess the one sentence a good financial and energy incentive  to get him to engage in a discussion are you talking about clarifying the record for purposes of what is included in the appendix and should not appropriately be there correct while your friend is g
tell them that needed here at once all right we've got to help is on the way
learn about different songs about self esteem we've got some discipline and some fun this choir actually on saturday morning will leave for philadelphia tours and they'll be touring and doing a concert in philadelphia the very large mansion in the suburbs they'll be staying and decease and living the life and then will come back and on christmas eve they want to play which they've been with person for a number of months and singing some of the same songs
issued after the hearing had been started on july twenty five and then it was continued until august not that we got a favorable decision from the administrative law it's not so much the process of the appeal that you challenge it's the relationship between the prosecutor and the decision maker and that is you her district court proceeding with this case if you have the same claim in effect on appeal to the oregon state courts right now because the administrative remedy that was role of the board advisor also asking this prosecutor and therefore that the remedies is flawed that would leave you with a declaration that the pro acted entirely outside the scope of their jurisdiction there's there is at least a potential that they could be sued in their individual capacity and if that were the case then obviously there would be there would be such limitation and in terms of the kinds of claims that could be many certainly a claim for wrongful initiation of the administrative proceedings pos under state law he didn't have the adequate remedies under state law both because he was provided with with a swift post deprivation hearing and full process there and now within it with an appellate process
phrase or could the phrase as a result of comprehend the fact that the police officers were even they were they would not have been there but for the emergency could that fall been there but for the emergency let me just give you an example if we construe the statute nearly as mr loop nicolosi would like us to do what would prevent a police officer from stepping away as the paramedics attended to the victim or
subsequent decision it will be acted and the following decision are applicable however he distinguished it on the basis that he found that mr lopez alvarez had in fact filed the st motion challenge in two clearly was raised i think the issue here i don't think it was a difficult decision in two thousand when it was denied i think the issue is that there was not  urged the couper to enter the amended judgment dropping those two counsel directed by by this court the court did that and then he turned right around and filed another actual innocence and as we date in our factual bourges one of our brief the overwhelming evidence against this defendant came from the hours and to the location where he says it's a camera right and it was being held and then have the incredible rich not detail about what happened in the van knowing the cars the persons were driving the type of weapon they have the fact that the traffickers decided to tape record their interrogation of the agent camera
i agree to this is ok but this car of course the question of admitting evidence on account separate it there however i think that's only one of the things to look at when considering prejudice first of all this court has repeatedly saying person used drugs it's highly prejudicial second the government excluded that personal use them out the government specifically requested it i'm saying here we go to the fact that he's aware of what cocaine is that he added use announced the court specifically stated well i don't think there's going to be any issue of whether or
of really
words that as they related early in the opinion which was that the district court found no facts to demonstrate that the actions of the officers were contrary to a normal traffic stop so i think we have to take have to take heed from the
the climate kause there's no evidence row cows getting into the wrong place number information that's readily available from because they still would have to show the mitigation is going to be  to ensure that the damage is going to be hit that because they are there for a very short period of time and that permit teams have been compliant and getting them back when they do so that's one point i'd like to make the second point is address the conference call i don't know what to do because it makes it sound like this you need to be careful with what we say there's a recognition that we have a problem we have not going to figure out on the ground what's going on and so i mean there's is we need to be careful with what we say perhaps something like we know there is truth but there is no confirmation of any environmental impact to do perhaps there are some but they're probably not necessarily talking term nor degrading they understood the difference between short term impacts which way and long term impacts short term impacts my case i was alluding to that they go over to the ok they're over there for short time period and
certified mail systems you're only just the only challenges that he can make his i'm in jail i didn't see that he has not properly any evidence under oath or otherwise that there's any doubt about that finding so you can challenge anything just by saying off the cop your head mail the response of the petitioner says well i'm home every day i go to the mailbox every day i never receive that so then the force of the proof here the reference from the petitioners brief is that he never idea that there were deportation proceedings is one of that it's just strange credibility to suggest that he had no idea that there was anything going on for a couple of reasons number one when he was stopped by the border patrol they were told you're going to get a notice reason unbeknownst to him that he never asked no one ever said to him no one no one ever given any paperwork and he and he never asked why am i not a free man how long after he was taken into custody file a petition t
looking at the underlying charge it was a misdemeanor domestic violence charge and if we look at the documents that were submitted to the court which is only the complaint amended complaint and the judgment it's might qualify the other prong definitely does not determine domestic or physical abuse is not defined in the statues it doesn't state if it is that needs an amount  striking that would be physical violence on a hard one is an example of striking that would not be a violent use of physical force if somebody was just throwing their hand back to maybe make a gesture in hits that could be called a striking but that wouldn't be no record or transcript of exactly what mr macgregor pled to like kind of conduct he pled to he pled no contest to the charges as read we don't even know for sure that it was the amended complaint that used the word striking it could have been the first complaint we don't know it can be assumed it was the one that used striking however again the term striking is not defined and in order for it to be a pred had two parts to the statute and even though he was charged with the more violent part the courts found because there was nothing in the record to state exactly what he pled to you could not determine whether or not that was that conduct what he was pleading to and it's the same thing in this case there's no record there's nothing there's no transcript there was nothing during the plea that was your second argument that you want to raise because ratio which would be that his sentence was enhanced for the gun being stolen and he was not aware of that particular it wasn't charging an appeal with regard to someone had the gun the facts so really unclear about what they did but mr berger testified there was a struggle for the gun because the man was going just shooting and he grabbed a gun meanwhile somebody else was shooting at him to why the statute why statute does not reach his contact having to do with his relationship with the woman who was the victim my understanding is that you also ar between the perpetrator in the victim that's correct your honor and it was not mentioned anywhere either in the complaint or in the judgment the relationship it's house hold member which she was not a household member she was a girlfriend but it didn't that it was described he said it was his girlfriend but a girlfriend it's not one of the categories and he wasn't living with her at the time it was the former girlfriend and so that did not set one of the categories for the whole lying statute based on just the information that was in the documents presented to the court the complaint and lee judgment and colloquy it has to be the charging document the judgment of conviction and the other documents at that time whitens conducted at that time and i don't see a document that says that it fits your definition under thirty three to that i think you're trying to reach which is
reopen that the judge let him know just how convinced he was by the evidence i would think stiles is in a better position for the judge having spoken because stiles had more information than you would've had to judge just sat there quietly court would have given him harsher sentence based on an additional obstruction finding that's completely speculative i think there's if there is ever a judge or a case because i think
we're not talking about thousands and thousands of images we're talking about it was almost five hundred dollars images you started looking at him when he was a youth he was molested he was a victim in his psychologist said that the reason that he looked at the actually happened is at reset missing when mr gibson was properly medicated and he was able to develop a relationship with his counsel and he was able given the circumstances because he possessing child pornography to lifetime supervision is not substantively unreasonable sort of in and of itself and as judge bennett noted the district court trying to talk quite a bit about this defendant specific did this one has any course of conduct that had lasted over a decade half of the defendant's life started looking at child pornography when he was twelve continuous he was arrested when he was twenty four the court talked about the nature of the material that the defendant had the types of search terms that he was using i mean he was seeking out videos and depictions of really purpose of the charge supervised release and the purpose of supervised release conditions is forward looking it is about protecting the public and at this point there is no question that the defendant know that the public needs to be protected and that and that the court certainly reasonable in doing what their sentencing guidelines recommend which it is imposing a term of lifetime supervis it who is going to have a relationship with his depended who is going to know what is going on and has to end like this probation officer is going to be able to see the red flags when they arise and when they arise when hypothetically when they depend in part of his probation officer that he's applied her job driving an ice cream truck her i mean something something that that the probation officer can see and say ok this is a red because in both of those cases the condition was as directed by the probation officer you will tell people about arrests and if the probation officer said hey you have to tell people about the risks that you  probation officer to say to the defended you need to tell every specific person who you present a specific risk to about that specific arrest and once again the defendant would be saying what is it this way defendant have to do i mean there's just no clue as to whether there's the probation officer says you need to warn people about the risks you posted about when that the defendant sitting there not knowing what to do that's where the vagueness problem is where when those instructions officer but there's also the vagueness to the defendant the defendant has to know what it is to cause that risk notification to kick in if there is a chilling effect with regard to the risk condition that's problematic
specification is very very clear on this point that if you use the commercially available product at the commercially available doses in other words the image racks product which is on sale at the time to mature four five eight and four nine nine are what we're talking about from the included standpoint and they're the ones that define the common they're the ones to include in common in the claims we are not arguing at under the correct definition of independent dissolution the pulse or minus definition so that's one problem with that comparis four through a one two six three four seven this data was assessed by our expert and our expert was able to conclude from that data based upon his expertise in the field t that you know development of penicillin to the patients who for decades had suffered from this horrible disease and this was the first drug that actually treated the condition and so persons of ordinary skill were not looking and their specific the means of their formulation by the way they formulate their tablet they are specifically and admittedly doing it to separate  in their printed on them or they say we're putting this plastic and spraying it around these products to keep them separated in segregated from the material so it wasn't like i want to address just a couple of points here first it's clear that mr hatch is trying to really get martin here the mark in order specifically acknowledges that the claims were directed to competitions and therapeutic packages it's right there on a twenty five thirty four so he's clearly had one bite of the apple didn't like the result and is now saying oh well if you look at it again now it's right there on a twenty five thirty one specific as i said specifically knowledge of the laser directed to both compositions and therapeutic packages on twenty five thirty four the provisional construction was two simultaneous and common and equal simultaneous posen lobby to have the definition broadened to include other types of can common administration they lobbied from the provisional just it's that is common in administration under any ordinary no that's a different product that they own so i don't understand how mr hatch is saying that one could never have  of the individual components finally with respect to the state of the order of experts i don't know is independent dissolution well that's very clear jiro expert had no
and he did not he had to stay in the interim to stay did not purport to go on the same spending way through the time for filing an appeal he filed a notice of appeal by that time he had been deported he wants to claim now as i understand it that deportation was illegal or he created made that same claim them bring not before his discourse anything lol wait a minute the illegally remove me so i haven't been removed at all so the vi should have heard my appeal and didn't you guys should l legal action has been taken it's presumably correct and the burden is on the parties who think it's incorrect to make a timely and appropriate challenge i believe under both leaders petersburg and mendez both of those respondents rated a upon his earlier deportation is ineffective assistance of counsel rising to the level of the due process violation there's if he moves to reopen the motion to reopen it is denied but it is most and to sure that that the compound where you can go there was a gross due process violation for all i know the lawyer said oh dear but you have to pay me my retainer first unless you're in here by the day before your hearing with five hundred dollars i'm not go own regulations in that when you file an appeal and the judge grants a stay that stay continues to the date that the appeals period ends this was later you know recognized in case law twelve days they waited twelve days because they thought it was ten days from the time for appeal and didn't calculate in the three days for mailing right to not have it follow through on that timing would put an unintended and a right concurrent with and the right of appeal graeber it right that he's not exactly arguing in effect of assistance he's arguing denial of due process because he was not properly allowed to private attorneys and action from a practice for example the remedy is against that attorney and not against the government since there was no due process deprivation or violation by the government there can be no basis for granting  proceedings for criminal prosecutions for illegal entry and even in those cases the court has required that even if you can even if you allow the collateral attack there has to be prejudice to the alien before the prior deals like a shorter will even taking
found that the three big time period was directory not mandatory understanding that this is a ministerial i'm not a direct react thank you  as relates to the mandatory directory dichotomy and that clearly applies here if nothing else does because we are talking about the regulation of a fundamental constitutional right