MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
batteries right and i'm so they're not they were not you know if anyone was here on an infliction of corporal injury on the spouse they don't have to i don't have that argument ok that's i think the then another of my argument is that for us we would like to make a distinction and that battery on an on a police officer is a crime of violence as the government has relied on u wrong and it's decision and a motion for reconsideration assertive there and the board denies the motion well i think it still would not be proper for the court to reach back because  the motion for reconsideration is not addressed at all in the petitioners brief so that issue is waived so there is no waiver of the only issue before the court and there is no honor but to get back to your question about violence even though i don't think it's properly before the court in this case i do i do have had some further thoughts listening to the occur battery requires a violent injury or the least touching defined as any wrongful act committed by means of physical force against the person of another so according to this distinction when they were  the chemical companies possible battery versus the kind of battery we're talking about the first read into that that battery does involve some kind of violence
radically different kinds of present than my present invention so one feature covered by the present invention or at another extreme the present invention requires that is the words present invention all by themselves will tell you whether this is a necessary part of ever covered by the invention it matters what other words around to present invention and i'm not sure we really have any kind of language of the in the absence of claim language if you're telling us something is the limit you have to show us that it really would be under reasonable to conclude otherwise conclude that  two things were close enough that it would be of your design choice to offer one in the other and there were no technical barriers to doing at all isn't that what they were really trying to get to and call dr stark hindsight but there actually if you put aside factor it seems to me there isn't actually sufficient evidence but maybe dr b m's might supply such sufficient evidence but we can't decide that would have to be connection while you're busy using the wife i but it's reasonable to combine to find that in that you have some standard and reasonable to combine them but i didn't see where there was evidence to say and  with not only the g p r s under sandor but also separately from the c d m a standard but at the time at least according to the board's findings putting aside after him and the draft we have a standard doesn't it the board out of the box having to follow the correct procedures
morning and that is you versus bar country's conditions the two thousand and eighteen report talks about the conditions at the time but how does that help establish an experience different back from two thousand and three yeah this is  difference because that burden is on your client yes if you mean what evidence back in twenty million twelve thousand what evidence is there to establish the material difference from two thousand and three to two thousand and eighteen because that's what she has to show us w write st class back you think so but now it please the court energy is on behalf of the attorney general this court should deny the instant petition preview because the agency did not abuse its broad discretion in denying before the court i thought she did not appeal the motion to reconsider that is what she appealed to the kinds of peeling the motion two thousand and nineteen motion to reconsider and it is important to kind of go over this time i'm really quickly i think it may be helpful because the only issue before this court is to change country conditions from a motion to reopen petitioner mentioned that in two thousand and three his client was removed in absentia and then the immigration judge denied that mo made a factual or legal error in didn't in failing in denying to reconsider that motion trio now the motion to reopen was untimely and petitioners claiming change country conditions and that's the only issue before this court to show change country going to sions it must be material change can dish and not previously available the only thing before the court is whether it was material and when you compare the country conditions at the time of the hearing which for this petitioner would be two thousand and three with the evidence submitted with a motion to reopen which is two thousand and seventeen petitioner wants this court to take judicial notice of the two thousand and eighteen country conditions which was not before this court and he also mentions an april twenty which neither of the twenty eight country conditions nor this april twenty one thousand articles was ever submitted motion including international read of freedom report an article about a christian cleric an out this goes to the point of petitioners claiming ethnic chinese food as as however she vacillates between buddhism and christian in her evidence she and with her motion to reconsider she attach no evidence besides her own declaration and in one thousand nine hundred and eight story which again was well before her two thousand and three removed it was petitioners heard to show change country conditions that were material that is the only thing before this court and therefore petitioners fail to meet her burden of establishing material change countries conditions to overcome her she presented similar country conditions for two thousand and three when her hearing and with her twenty seven thousand motion reopened therefore she did not demonstrate any legal or factual error in the board's denial of her reconsideration motion
shoot a statement merely indicated that she styled black male running in the general vicinity of the shooting for which defendant was convicted she didn't say that she thought that she stopped just a minute couple of days later in the and no way connects the individual that she stock to the crime for which defendant was convicted she did not see him running for on the scene of the crime she merely song and the same neighborhood she did not see her with the weapon and she did not know who this man was there is no fact that connects this man to the crime for which defendant was convicted and it is this lack of connection that renders the evidence irrelevant consequently the trial are properly excluded the evidence wasn't relevant because there is no connection between her statement and the crime for which defendant was convicted and because opinion cannot persuade that the trial court's decision was an abuse of discretion tel likewise was not ineffective to prove ineffective assistance of the public counsel return to the familiar test outlined strickland washington which requires the defendant to prove both deficient performance and prejudice consequently defendants postcondition mission failed to make a substantial showing of the constitutional violation in the trial court properly dismissed the petition at the second stage of review
court my name is donna frick i represent mr rudd david gambled on in this particular matter i think there are some things that are that are given here one  attorney didn't perform to the standard of the community as professional standards i think the main issue in this particular case is whether they were prejudiced i submit that if the court doesn't do its delegates or bar of the state would sleep through something like that but that have now what was the practice everybody in the courtroom knew that this was a prison yard of crime assault in the in the yard  folsom which had the biggest collection of felons in the state of california and there was no way that those people would be allowed in a courtroom without a good deal of security so what what was prejudicial i guess the concern i have is that the jury was given an explanation of why he was held the way he was held that was separate and apart from his guilt or innocence for the charge he was on trial for was but they were not to know they were told in fact that this is something that happens because he's already in custody judge or make during the trial but i'm not saying during that when a courtroom is out there like all the shackles that was made free instructions are supposed to be given after the jury is impaneled not when you're sitting out there sitting in the you and the spectator bought boxes waiting to be anything said before they are actually in peril has no bearing because
advantageous to these landowners apartment building owners and you asserted that within months of entering the program they entirely recovered their investment what were there any findings about that this was a great deal that hugely benefited the landowner because that the contention you advanced yesterday and we believe that to a service that that is factual and that the court did it was factual findings are one way or the other we also believe that there's a certain amount in an oral argument you say ok finding the facts and be on page fifty two is incorrect rather you seem to be saying the judge didn't make findings that you shouldn't get it for the most part because
and her mother was appointed her heart at that time the trial court order without a petition by either party or visitation by either parent or that these have extensive contact with her father and said  curious given what you just said where did this idea for this order comparable i assume that the order came from the fact that the parents are divorced she's been doing it so he just doesn't want to be forced to see him at set times as a child when he's an adult  really not necessary for part of this case but just because i'm curious what your agency your what was the incentive for the legislature to come up with this  where an adult ward was forced to visit was required to visit a parent there have been some cases and domestic relations cases and a few guardianships where there were agreements between the parties medical psychologists she has thirty plus years of working with individuals with about mental disabilities treating them evaluating them she found on equivocally that then he says a capacity to make her own decision about who she spends time and what they do and that is not only not the legal standard the legal standard is whether we're in convincing evidence is produced that the individual has the capacity to perform the task necessary for the care of a person in this case for se visitation or when she was here father and that that standard was clearly not here both a guardian ad litum as well as a guardian support limited guardianship in this situation and referring her report specifically stated that intelligence is a general mental ability that represents the global capacity of an individual to act purposefully think rationally and deal effectively with her in fact it is important to note that  actual intelligence is much more than what is measured in represented by an i q score this assessment serves as an estimate of denise's overall intelligence so she clearly explained that i q testing was not answer the american is the definition of the condition itself with the four categories or four levels is the definition something after that you start with the idea that sub average intellectual functioning in parentheses at whatever level so the trial for it was not presented with any other expert no medical testimony no other medical expert to say anything to the contrary about any such condition so this was one contradicted evidence that she does have the capacity to make these it's in there the g a o and the guardian reports to the court site he says we're looking for maturity over time she was changing she was growing and learning and and changing from twenty five she was not were simply because i believe that right yes that's what it appears it didn't his response during his testimony why are you taking her to naperville he said
and then at the university here we have pictures of all of the classes and guess what i also have a small but the point here is that's the record of conviction that's the record of conviction that we had before you makes nine convictions for sex assault in the third degree under hawaii by statute first of all are any one of those offens and that's the definition which means that there are several possible meanings of a certain word but in this particular case the supreme court has told us again and your threats told us again you have to take a look at the statute and if you take a look at the statute in this case seven zero to one thirty two seven seven zero seven seven thirty three one you take a look at it what do you see it doesn't tell us what kind of contact so we take a look at the next definition on seven hundred seventy seven seven hundred one is sexual contact sexual contact  learned colleague will be here all the way from washington and actually told us everything and sometimes you know we whole way we feel a little bit funny we feel like we know we're not good enough but i feel in this particular case we are because you know why they started the same thing they told us the same thing sexual contact seven o seven seven thirty three will get one be the first sent knowingly subjects of sexual contact another person who is less than fourteen years old so we have the specific intent of knowingly but then he goes on to say or or causes such a person to have sexual contact with statute under the case law that we have under bear in mind you know for example if it's an aggravated felony if you make sexual contact with lewd intent lewd intent the person on the fourteenth it doesn't matter why you touch the this court recently i think it was about a year ago this court said prostitution is prostitution but for immigration purposes it is not prostitution if the statute similar that i would not be here today if i did not believe that she was in error you look at her modified categorical thrilled you take a look at the record of conviction the record of conviction that we have when you take a look at him what did he plead to count one for example these are clouds the track the statute in the statute doesn't have an intent so excellence can't express doesn't it does not it does not have sexual intent so for example if i'm walking does not kate contain the sexual intent component they cannot drop its opposition that the way the statute is written today the way the statute is written it is not an aggravated felony category three because any so and i can tell you plenty of these kind of cases they don't appear as to whether or not whether or not there was any kind of
but we don't we don't do that the general rule you know we don't usually but first decision for a substantive decision on an issue why should we do it here but well i think there's a lengthy argument about how the attorney general exceeded his authority under state law so at least in this quote it's not clear to me that the plaintiffs have to fee who so you were getting no objection if we were to dismiss this appeal based on a stipulation which would be binding for purposes of this would be gay or representation which would be binding for purposes of the work with litigation that the plaintiffs are not pressing any stick with all claims in wrong as they don't make an argument about a state law violation being the basis for a federal due process claim that is not blood he just represented nor what i understand to be what he needs to represent to move
overseas to do training and to get you ready for where you're going and yeah you know a little bit of training not come back training i remember they called processing overseas the other it yeah you know you were there with people from all over all over the country you know i was with a lot of guys from ohio and that area and yeah we became friends and we're still point today you know we still to in retired from there now with a different that's a different beast you know it to me it was a job it was just another job that you did you know you did your three or four years and get along pretty well but it's a great organization and i was trying to do some good things and i want to grow the community i really believe that and like i said i wish i could do more to live here but i can't live in new hampshire a whole different way of how they do things today compared to when when i was that you know my my heart goes out to them because they've got a tough job and if i had my way three boys all three of them would have went and so if i had my way but my wife when you allow that to happen well i just said i really believe that you know something i didn't and again people say thank you for service  we we realize that a lot of us would have been drafted and if you had drafted then things changed you know because then you're going to go you're going to be combat eventually combat in vietnam was a nice place really was a nice that it's a nice place today i guess but i don't know i have no part i've had some friends that i know went back i i would never want to go back and you know when i left i left there
the first matter on calendar which is the last but it is quite it's quite possible that in eight that in a very close case that one might be disabled as of the age of fifty but not disabled previously and although it seems sort of silly to say well i'm disabled as the state but not as of the day proper credibility determination all of which are things that are well established in this court's law that he would have yes found him disabled as he did but he would have also lawson was in at the age of fifty when he just finally it diagnosed and he had been suffering from this for ten years and he had finally had it diagnosed and he was finally beginning to get some treatment for it but for the previous ten hearing he was still having that problem of having to go to the bathroom five six times a day five to seven times a day i believe his testimony was during the during the course of what would be an ordinary work any recommendations of those doctors in addition he was having trouble remembering and that was part of the sleep apnea and part of the dive use both of those things were causing him difficulties
useful in trained hands but dangerous when handled by boys or girls are inexperienced adults this stor are we all set for the party what is it sort of like a firecracker i saw some kids put one hundred ten can set it all lloyd made a loud noise drive your dog on the right they are look here this little cap is filled with a high powered explosive and electric current set it off and when this cap goes off that sets off the dynamite say the because these caps are very powerful they're very dangerous especially if they're handled carelessly or get into the hands of children or somebody who doesn't understand them you could stand two hundred feet from one of these things one of exploded and the flying metal could  it off it would give you some idea of how dangerous a blasting cap going to really be babe ruth with his mighty swing never did do a baseball on a little blasting cap can kids have been known to set off blasting caps under a tin can and you don't even have to be own them to get hurt you see it like a hand grenade ready yes dangerous is that h own a couple weeks ago on a construction job not far from here a boy found a cab and he started to hammer it with a stone to see what would happen that boy's right hand was crippled you'll never play baseball again  look like this this is a different kind but just as dangerous if you ever find a cab don't touch it leave it where it is and tell someone who knows something about them remember one of them  show that's of blasting caps oh don't you know these things are dangerous you could have killed somebody i didn't mean to hurt anybody it was just a joke joke this could have wounded any one of but i've never had a closer call than just now blasting caps or powerful explosives do you know that now all right now i want you to promise never to touch a blasting cap if you ever see one don't move it don't touch it with anything leave it just where it is and call someone who knows how to handle  because i was well i think what could have happened to you i get cold shivers but they say children learn best from experience so if you've learned never to touch a blasting cap well then perhaps it was worthwh good look at this blasting cap and don't touch it here's an the kind don't touch it this one's a little different don't touch it here's one more remember what it looks like and don't touch it if you ever see any of these blasting caps anywhere don't move them don't touch them with anything leave them just where they are and call a policeman a fireman a sheriff or tell your mother and father
than ever before and over the years everyone has shared in the benefit air time to keep up with the latest information from the county agent land grant colleges a wide awake farmer keeps improving is crops and stock but in rivalry among firemen each year they supply the public with better products and they demand the same from the industries that supply them more and better insecticides killers fertilizer better lubricants to protect machinery against the wear and tear of friction abundance created by the phrase the american man on the land in five new ship with american industry and its power to gather they will work to ensure our strength and preserve our climate our freedom
that he requests to generate didn't destroy the business character of the record and issue the second point that i was it in just to finish the first one all the signals that we do have from the supreme court suggest that these documents thought outside the confrontation clause there in the repeated references to
were at first i thought it was really come on well you did well you know and for a while i thought my dear brother just made up all this cover got alex being a bookworm but now i find out he really cares a character well it isn't the first time the electric range practically an automatic car right and only a few steps from where the food is kept out of power and i have up to one important thing consideration for the housewife imagine having to do that the hard way
don't think you're understatement car appearing on behalf of the cohen corey leaf there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed in this case in the first question is the issue of standing in the district court made a specific factual legal finding  davis the court this court specifically talked about footnote two about the misleading the misnomer of the term standing what we really need to look through is whether or not they manifested i recently expectation of took the bag off the self and put on the washer and dryer specifically testified that he had to get up on the tip toes to reach the get it an argument would be that by mr fay putting the back up high on the shelf where you couldn't see inside of it unless you took the bag down we're right and unlimited write this story a legal property if somebody wants it out of south of the fact of why the officers were there on the first place which is to help this scared single mom with hope to get her belongings out of her house they were helping her with her own belongings in her own bedroom and so when she sent them can you help me with that bag i don't think that demonstrates any condition that she recognized the bag didn't belong to her  these are the same facts that justify or demonstrate that ms ortiz had actual authority to get the bag out of the house the fact the bag was open and the fact that it was not segregated  from ms ortiz belongings the fact that the bag didn't have mr faiz name on it the fact that it wasn't closed the fact that the laundry room doors were open the fact it was in a common area of the home and in addition asked the question was there any more the officers could have done when they come in and miss or t s says to them you know that's where the bag is take it out given the