MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
area and so it was it was somewhat speculative on his part there was not a book in it a statement to that effect where the police didn't have to break the gate open i don't think they  and my feeling on that is that there was no indication as to when this picture was taken and that it was neither established through  the witness who founded on the cell phone in it's shown to the store clerk who identified it so it could have been years before we don't know now i'm best part of the sensing transcript well it's yes it's clearer and in connection with lends itself to the sliding scale on our success of the of the standard and so on it seems to me that that's where students say that initially they found gardening tools yes your honor i don't know if those are considered drug paraphernalia but there was no marijuana found in the house or drug paraphernalia but it certainly reasonable to infer erm we're right i don't know exactly the distance from the house i understand it was maybe forty feet from the property right and i don't know the distance from that part of the house are and i don't know if there are better if there was other gardening activity outside of the house proper on the mother property itself and i don't know whether the fat man when he made that comment was being facetious with the with the distribution are for sale or out of the already as nature is growing of march quantity of marijuana and you do need equipment in order to cultivate marijuana it's my understanding has challenged only a single straightforward sentencing enhancement that stand go road did not have a material impact on the ultimate guidelines calculation and therefore on the sentence impose our st address that especially under the clear error standard is a very difficult hurdle to overcome i think st it's important to really distinguish the care that make the distinction between proximity of the grocer back house you have the fact that he has prior and said this you're out again with respect to the gun itself the photograph is not even the most interesting evidence it's not there was a witness who signed enter explains that it was taken approximately two years prior to that hearing now mind you that hearing occurred at the end of march twenty eight and he said it was warm out at the time so critical right around the time leading up to newton's arrest in july of tw requires detailed reasoning for the th circuit standard in order to reverse for guidelines issued by this court has decried reversed under circumstances where that sentencing judge has made clear that and by stating that he is difficult to imagine given the nanny reasons that the court cited that would not a rational person quit not conclude that newton's firearm facilitated the sense of cultivation if there are any critic questions i would be happy
underlying the circumstances in this is one clear thing is important in the consideration by the court and that is that at all stages of this case at all stages of this case the united states has been present as the attorneys on behalf of the every forum that has built where the united states attorney has appeared and the united states of tourney is appearing in th i do not i have not found anything in that since your honor i believe that under really rule sixty b six process that it would be possible for the court to remain and i and this is one of the areas that i frankly have wrestled with trying to come up with some kind of a let's say a satisfactory response from my own sense of what is necessary here the the  modify would require modification that please the commission as a federal agency that so that the district court could allow consideration under federal levels for an amended lease and and by that amended beatings the assertion circumstances that district court in allowing the amendment for the supplemental issue is a dominant issue now before the court and that the court can is a form of property and circumstance when president reagan essentially eliminated the commission without there being some provision made for the cause of action that was intending statute of limitations is when the cause arises in under the wood case that didn't occur until february of two thousand and one we're still inside the statute of limitations on that and i see that i am out of time you the congressman that originally cry to provide a private bill was a democrat in the republican controlled congressional committee and this is not a political statement it never saw the light of day would somebody down the ninth circuit mediation program and that was not ultimately not fruitful zero for three five five ni
shoulder pain referred solely to the objective findings of the x rays x rays don't are no good muscle or ligament injuries which is why she was pressing to have that it's not typically considered but the regulations as they existed at that time did set forth that in certain circumstances then a other source may have more familiarity a young young one who dress the ability to sustain that employment so does your case rise or fall on on how we evaluate the jail days treatment of young that is that that is one of the issues that would have to be re evaluated on remember what we've been asking god yes sounds like you've got a little bit of time i'm really trying to figure out whether you got any other argument i keep asking is there anybody else here that that the ale j dismissed and shouldn't have  information to come to a different conclusion so when you weigh the four opinions that were very consistent with each other verses one opinion that was an outlier and that said opinion didn't address the entirely reported symptoms and complaints i was also a little puzzled by the conclusion that the four of them had been completing check the box forms now i've got a lot of social security and i sometimes see cases where counsel has provided a form to up to a medical provider and it's not a very useful form these were state forms these were state or federal forms that they were being asked to fill out and they were very careful in marking the between one and the other on things that are fairly minor fairly minor differences and when specially when you have four psychologists who have reviewed her and come to the to similar conclusions and one who comes to a slightly different those treatment is largely boil a sixty minute session down to one or two sentences at the square of the current stressors it doesn't talk about what her baseline function is it doesn't address the issues that w medication it never really improved beyond her baseline there were times where it diplo that medication brought it back up but then she would not have the same response so they have to keep changing it so the primary thing was just keep her baseline level of functioning and she has been able to work since two thousand and thirteen and that hasn't changed despite the medication is medication
officer of team and executed a search warrant for his apartment were in he sees several items and forty one by the south crack cocaine mr his when i was charged at the conclusion that we should read the four hundred and six conviction as for conspiracy rather than attempt yes your honor st of all he was not observed attempting to on panel the drugs he was actually selling drugs we have supports an attempt charge but what supports a conspiracy charge the fact that he was sending drugs out of the house in private you know how is not enough to show it was a conspiracy as he would not have been able to sell those trucks you are or otherwise well the question is what what at the time of the four or six conviction indicates at the time of the conviction not now looking back at the time the record of the forty six have actually what would have supported a conspiracy charge rather than come forth and bring evidence or bring a proffer saying look this this is what actually happened in this case the pendant was pled down but only on the th part of oral sex not on the conspiracy part because right but i don't i don't think that it was up to me to bring is conspiracy or attempt and then you know at the time that the that charge is put down they're not thinking about the follow on consequences of a federal he was convicted already of the puerto rico law firms that conviction either is for attempt or is working furiously and you can't do anything post hard to make it one or the other it was what it was right he could have put on evidence to clarify if i mean he for example he talked about the police officer statements but none of that's in the record so in fact that was part of the record in the puerto rico case we've been unable to get such statements i've tried as part of preparation for this hearing but haven't been able to obtain anything but if there were additional information from that case that would show that what i'm saying is suppose there's no information right and we have a conviction that is for attempt or conspiracy and we just don't know which of the two it was how was the defendant ever to be able to solve the problem going to just what is a conviction if we were doing it like we do with categorical analysis for crimes of violence cases we usually when he put the face of the conviction well he he didn't he didn't enter into that into the record but i think even that you can't rely on the fact that the indictment under section four why do you think you can look at the conduct that's described in there  understand the facts of what happened and the facts of what happened where that he was found in his apartment with forty one back his back that looks like an attempt and not a conspiracy there's are all the facts that are set out in the indictment so what are you saying that in light of what the indictment said defendant suggests that the only evidence that the government will introduce is that say oh that's not true there are additional witnesses who will testify that he was the seller and part of the broader conspiracy but the court doesn't need to reach this because we believe that he has not met his
there was a child went for the red a in the first object he looked among that object he became that object became part of him for the day or a certain part of the day for many years or stretching cycles of years go climb something in a way this is a real world not never  water where the victim to visit the neighboring
summarily adopted the decisions of the illinois workers compensation commission and their entirety ice t decisions because this case did not really proceed down to the typical appeal to trajectory of arbitration commission review circuit court the decision of the commission stemming from the back doctor glance suspected that there might be a unrelated migraine phenomenon that might explain his symptoms and the right leg but certainly it is  court to consider that pointing to the area of your body where you have pain is something that you can ask any child to do and mr hanken which certainly have been changeable of pointing to demonstrate the area where  being taken seriously by the company doctors which i think it is something that needs to be taken into consideration when if you're only looking at consensus records or their diagnoses or they may have only said one bar contusion or only  just been said he's pointing to the middle of his back g the commission after taking all the testimony under consideration found that not only was mr higgins testimony credible consistent with the medical records where he said he was commissioner or the commission was in the best position to look at it look through all the evidence their findings not give the manifest with the evidence for causation and therefore t t d the treatment that was actually done afterwards as well as  burden of proof by a preponderance of the abbott events meaning more likely than not that the treatment recommended by dr medical is related to all intent to two thousand and nine one accident is not supported by the majority of the medical evidence
instances are you saying that he knew what the right answer was but he intentionally reached the wrong result from your point of view if you're gonna when you're wrong thought what i'm trying to convey poor toron good afternoon your honors michael scold on behalf of the defendant the district court properly dismissed this case on grounds of eleventh memon and lack of federal jurisdiction over is the number of other alternative grounds for dismissal in my brief i think they're fully address judge adelman only in his official capacity i think she's conceded that her brief so judicial unity i don't think would only apply to individual capacity claims so i think all claims are barred by the eleventh amendment and like a federal  there was any appeal from trial court's decision a family court decision within the connecticut state judicial system i think there have been appeals in that case your honor and there certainly are available all of the rulings that she is complaining about she either did or could have appealed menace in the federal courts just aren't the proper venue for her to be raising these claims so you argue is the case should be resolved on statutory and judicial  i think that all the claims in the case are properly construed against judge adelman and his official capacity only and so and it's therefore treated as a claim against the states of the eleventh amendment bars any claim for money damages the state has not  discourse i feel that this is very much prostitution we should at least violate the my right to my due process you understand i mean in our system i'm sure you understand because you has been living with it that sometimes we in the federal courts which is a completely different system from the state courts are very much constrained with respect to what we can do in the to the state courts or to state court judges do you wonder i hope you
application and that all the counsel to the additional time you have in your papers characterize actually happened is that he there was a painting motion to dismiss the court said i'm prepared to grant and the government said it requested instead that they have additional time to file a superseding indictment  come to new hampshire or some way down would have had to happen that is a dish one hurdle he would have had to face a superseding indictment i believe that so there was some small measure there was no advantage so it seems to me that there was no york or new hampshire but if we were in new hampshire so the only question is is new york a better place to try the case and there is a motion in the procedure under rule twenty one that would do it was available he found that motion before the district court judge it had been denied in the passport prior case none of the papers in this case he just there were some new arguments that were going to be made soon there's no basis there for this to court to conclude that he knew in day made with a new rule twenty one motion  happened not the possibility that sometime in the future you mean there's a benefit you have today you know take a formal position then but i think that would be our argument at this point because right now he's not he's not government look to if you just say it was a false statement in a travel document how can a judge decide that's a material false statement if you know the passport document is a false statement as to citizenship then you can make the materiality determination looking at the defense replied he doesn't perceive the argument and says this one doesn't require the defendant to know he's making the statement to the government that's not the government's argument in this brief the government's
exception bars plaintiff's claim for this fall in the rain forest which is national forest i don't have a great deal to add to to the this is the policy pronk of the discretionary function argument by not raising it below and the case law from the circuit is clear that it was a planter's burden to do that and the plaintiff failed to do that in district court the pla side be able to deal with it here actually your honor i would respectfully disagree with that characterization because the district didn't really have to deal with it at all under this court's the holding and father guillen and other cases because it was the the plaintiffs in rose bush and the and and the eighth circuit in shantelle they recognize that these determinations in the national parks in the national forests are susceptible to upon their belief the courts have held that they did that that the policy prom is not satisfied for instance they chased the rock creek park the court has before it in this case where it's a question of whether the forest service should be required to essentially spoil the natural setting by putting a warning sign  fulop the sides should have been placed but they are emphasizing that this was that they were on a trail and they were expecting that they believe they believe that the s because it should have been either right as somewhere along the trail or at the beginning of the trail and of course the handrails that they're that they're asking them to have any purpose would have had to have been along the trail where the where the p
in violation of certain regulatory statutes ninety five seven which requires that he has an importer register with the drug enforcement administration and the nine seven one which further requires that fifteen days that to make us comfortable with that at the end of the day of course he is not sentenced really under d'sevyn he sentenced under the count one what they've done i guess the argument day is something kind of slippery they've avoided having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he really did that by somehow sneaking i surprise and the district court appropriately considered all of the relevant conduct that about which the defendant testified and that which the district court found to be
officer safety and security there was nothing in the backyard they gave there any indication of insecurity there was no evidence that there was any indication of criminal activity whatsoever packed and the pointy ears at that point and your contention is they shouldn't they should have gotten off of that property gone out onto the public way and then come down the public way and gone back onto the here we're talking and that they have any reason to believe that they were invading anybody's privacy by walking from or over they were when they got the radio message to wherever they were going to go to get to the front of the house there's just nothing about anything that they were
unique what makes this case different there is a whole lot here given the time differential between their last conduct and when he started to sell ended up being president and mr president former and she had many phone calls back and forth yes but she didn't do anything any of the time when he actually sold request a favor for a favor and am requesting hereon to sell products to her informant she did it in order to as she told him get a promotion she was originally sign she was present with the young and progress the day before the sale when the phone call was made to ferrie and she was present the day of the sale before and after the sale and she was present for the payment between the advance at the prison and her ability to tried to get herself a couple of informants we all know that they do many things to try to get forms the events that are most law enforcement officer working with a federal task force that was involved in the conduct heavily involved in working her agent for the sales i think that's important because her job is how much to the he had no entrapment defense so he submitted an entrapment by a stop to the jury in which he claims that he was promised immunity for these criminal acts but the jury rejected that difference now he's asking for the the government employed sax as a way as an investigatory tool and use it deliberately in a way that isn't present here in both of those cases the courts asked why their government agents were well i agree that there will be some tension but it would accord that with the ninth circuit's united states versus simpson so to the extent you're worried about that tension i think it already exists between the ninth circuit and second  manifest use of discretion in its handling of that potential juror taint and the district court acted promptly to understand the extent of that exposure and warrant the entire jury jury several times not to turn on the phone or explore its contents only one juror definitively saw the word molly it appears that the fourth person was the one who also saw the phone but didn't make any indication that he saw that wired to  the exact language was slightly different he particularly told that to disregard the reference to molly he didn't tell the rest of the jury that that word was seen but he told the rest of the jury not to turn on the phone or to look at what w
mr roman was an idol and i'd like to point out that this was a very weak case against him and only was that with a weak case not only did the prosecution witness route to determine whether or not his testimony was credible credible so i didn't have anything to do what did or did not happen in the liquor store on the curial because i think my client's credibility is very important very relevant and very material  to point b going a particular direction and somebody didn't goes with their watch on and says all right you know i'm going to check and see if it actually took you can do this in ten minutes but just because he's sitting room from home to george's liquor store a certain i found what was really interesting about this was there had been a tentative not a final vote but a tentative vote of guilt on that count now if the jerk has enough of the question in her mind that she has to go out and do her own experiment at the same after she's already voted tentatively for gold well that shows why she voting for the circumstances the factors to look at it it shows that the jury and certain jurors and if you look at several incidents where simply not giving my client the right to a fair unbiased jury who is willing to do their job correctly and follow the law you know whether or not it would be easier or harder  char and that's kind of where that's where basically i like the cart court to start looking at the credits because part of prejudicial stay on point although that well he actually did two things one of the experiments and later on after a court watcher approached one of the jurors coming out of the supreme court starting this time last year which underscore the strength of the deference standard under section two to five where the supreme court has made it quite clear that pavia square this is an extraordinary met and anything she did what it would have been redundant a few other factors going to the notion of prejudice beyond the fact that there's no direct and rational connection with the prejudicial jury verdict petitioner wasn't even sure that he was ever in that liquor store under his own testimony i think its defense would if then he never really articulated what his defense was but i think he would have said that maybe i prints on the beer can and there was no dispute the victim's testimony that the shooter left the beer can on the counter moreover the experts testimony was quite clear that  print left out of your can in a cooler would not last he said it wouldn't last even if you took the can when you took the can out of the cooler and it was even less likely it would last if you left the can in the cooler so in both of these crimes based