MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
to the traffic stop and those seem such as talking to the driver and looking for outstanding warrants and he found that probably didn't have a  oh again that fact and the fact that he was acting nervous is irrelevant or about reloading but on those things that taylor observed the nervousness the fact that he had a criminal and they also found that the defendant in that case had a criminal background relates to narcotics on how this quick poll that those two factors were not sufficient to support the finding a reasonable he never testified that at that point that he that he has suspicion or he suspected that that he was related to criminal activity and it's also important that lincoln is being honestly at the hearing that he didn't know what was going on in terms of criminal activity but he had a feeling that something was going on or in the war is a hunch and  going on in this case  versus congress case that we cited goes to that and that's that's not an issue that just because you look it's not directly related to stop it's not something that can be asked so if i'm driving down the forth when and it was just a mere observation regarding the the grokking back and forth and his general knowledge about criminal he was signing for thirty years to look for happy in this case was at least as much as theory  when they start searching the car the noise that this he had there's something all about the t v or stickers on it there is a bag with a remote control on it looked like it was from a store and he started asking harvey about the t v and up the tensions of the officer clear the traffic stop the scope of the truck stop was completed at that point but the chose to continue just up a christening that under the circumstances would not feel free to leave i know there's just have yet more circulation it's still not clear to me exactly when the officers were doing their talking to you my understanding was that taylor was the one who's was doing the stuff that he talked to the defendant that he went back to the car to write the ticket that while wrong about there by understanding the facts and this is from what i've seen in my notes and everything is just that normal conversations about the t v the phone call all that happened after hiller
old site of the county where the actual the actual proof for example of the provision in the criminal code that where the assailant lives in the county different than the victim very early on when this issue st came up rice saying something to get back to you know isn't this the legislature simply define what it means to have committed a crime so what are  are our constitution says that you have the right to trial where the crime was committed and then went to the legislature has done especially very provisions is they have to further define what it means to commit shocked to make it to prevent the state from the we have to say hey we'd like to try you down in marion county because we just feel like it and make you you know it protects the  change cranks change how do we deal with that and the legislature can make adjustments for that kind of thing and that's what they did here to accommodate a situation where you know i might take your adit your credit card your but other legislatures might work something broader in their definition where something was committed you know and and again tonight when we look at our particular constitutional provision that says we're committed  in my hand go to alaska because that's where this person chose to take my agenda whether physically or by virtue of internet or however it was got that information  discuss decision to proceed with six jurors counsel says yes and then the court asked the defendant and that he should choice and that fact response yes so it is true that there is just not on this record other than the time when the  really brings forth is ok maybe it's the same maybe it might be some of the same behavior but it was so prejudicial because the woman was on her wedding night or something to the artifact it was that necessary to occurs in multiple counties google that plays a trial session every single one of them will be actually tied to the criminal conduct at issue and just clarifying where the crime actually occurs that it with alicia discretion in doing this is not unlimited i limited by the constitution it cannot violate the constitution do so they cannot arbitrarily create many where they feel it is convenient and in doing so they have my way the constitution because the defendant has a right to
be answer is no executive agencies really have no power beyond those afforded to them by congress congress has designated diesel and exclusive procedure for removing non citizens like my client requirement because judge jury is question is really reminiscent of the way the th circuit as chosen thing analyze this matter if you if you treat the notice requirement court believes that this was one time we were there was some procedural flaw in the proceedings alone that is very different than what the agency determined which was that the government complied with them oh it would not be  principle question in in this matter the overwhelming majority of the circuit sort of aggression this question or be on somewhat different differing rationales if there is is you just measure the statute against the government's conduct and your standard says one thing and the government did another but yes the government contends that it complied with its own regulations but then begs the question of whether an executive over again and that's really why i might brings me you know i'm tempted to call this the government's too big to fail argument and they're saying that we have done this so many times and so we could make that we have possibly be illegal about it but i did not ask you one thing tasked with implementing it has defined how reduced to be used in one contacts on my kin program or of there is there is no conflict between two congressional and that if there are no questions on the committee thank you appear requirement that were placed in the very nose requirement that used to exist before nine hundred and ninety six the agencies steadily and continuously has been ignoring the stature of my client challenge this in a way that the agency
or found that the bones were built in response to the building of the did so the burns were meant to combat the change in the natural flow to correct that's exactly right ok so i guess my question is then i mean if you go back to the
sent them unsolicited tele faxes and i think we know the facts yes and no matter this is a this is an area of the law that saying great turmoil the president so tell us what we should be doing here in the third circuit  genesis it's our position your honor that under the well settled this concept in the third circuit that the off for under rule sixty eight of complete relief which the plaintiffs had admit court held back a wallowing b defendants took off a representative plaintiff would frustrate the class action rules and therefore under the court's application of the relation  decision turned out of the continuing interest of the plaintiffs in trying to spread cost and expenses over other successful class litigants and the court can observe that it was only in dicta after the proper court made its decision so simply because we offer is deemed to have expired doesn't change the facts on the article three that the people think this habit offered up for satisfaction of their claim and therefore under article three we certainly part of your offer your honor we would allow the entry of judgment for the our amount of the sixty eight off i know there's been some discussion cases that it talks about because of the well the argument advanced by justice kagan in part but it certainly could the federal courts maintain jurisdiction in cases that are settled all the time it's very not it's not uncommon at all but you're transactions and occurrences and in over three years after having filed this case it taken no action to see it any extension of time to explain why they haven't done it were to offer any reason why they didn't they were not able that little twenty three point three actually defines practicable time that's expressed in a federal twenty three so i mean certainly no the definition may may be improper may be intention understand so it's our position that the white that that genesis rejected the relation back exception applied in rice and that in synch might not be the case where are we if the supreme court would look at a class action in the same way that they look at the action in genesis well they did think it goes back to the question that we're born with a process i don't think that is that there's nothing magical there's something really special this hardest about nearly moving for certification as opposed to mike in the sausage case for certification had actually been graded that's a different situation would move the action now in either of those quotations from the court's opinion does the word assume appear and in fact in rice the court also found that they
distinct scenarios where you know those cases fortune seems to involve a purse type of case graham seems to conclude it does not involve the st type of case instead it's a case in which there were simply no reason for the faster you i gave the company toward achieving the regulatory approval came around fourteen months that massachusetts law really doesn't allow the employer says i know i promise you ten thousand shares a star but my car that stock is worth a ton now i'm taking it home and i'm terminating go the rest you agree that i can  getting to go get into the goal line of approval coupled with caustic you know rational conduct coupled with in september two thousand and fourteen the sea saying we're going to make that change coupled with in
the order granting the th the pending motion to withdraw it was filed the same day yes that order was housing the court the i think the docket notes i'm not completely sure but i think the docket should show that the court received that  th had not already extended the trial date to out me eighteen and up and at that time attributed the delay to the defendant that's what prevented the date from actually running on april an incriminating nature but immediately apparent means immediately apparent without any further search and the word search it means searching for the missing sense in the constitutional sense if a further investigation is posit that there are two different apps that we're talking about here the defendant actually is not arguing it in his brief that the physical act of calling the phone was a constant it was of a constitutional consequence he's not arguing that that's the search he's arguing that the search occurred when the when the the officer then reached into the pocket and extract the phone and it's the state's response to that argument that by the time that he did that which was after the phone let up and bring in response to that call probable cause had already arisen because when when he called the number that he knew was the number of the small home and saw the phone in the pocket and search means search in a constitutional sense the intrusion into a constitutionally protected interest and that the act of calling a phone was not a search in the constitutional sense it wasn't physical intrusion it didn't intrude on any  one on any privacy interests of the defendant the defendant isn't arguing that that was a search will are about is is whether immediately apparent means immediately apparent without a constitutional search a further act or whether immediately apparent doesn't really say anything that says that i would like to address some of the things that was said about the speedy trial just briefly i just have another question that justice were brought
what his findings are we haven't been able to do that in this there are lots of court federal laws decisions that say when an attorney is investigating as opposed to  yes under his own coverage it doesn't increase his coverage on the hundred forty seven thousand for himself but he has the option to include his guest he had a fiance she had fifteen to twenty five tho have substantial reason to know it's not true there's a difference between a subjective valuation and somebody saying i have eight hundred twenty five movies in my house when you have five hundred we're not just talking assigning a dollar value and whether it's actual
order that we have authority to correct correct and the reason i'm asking for for him to be remanded to be there for a new trial is to give us another opportunity to do this because of the importance of this matter and because
it would appear to me that if you make a statement about reasonable and that statement is not that the trial court should have at least allow the defendant to have that as a written instruction two white men come up onto the native american reservation they are holster are law enforcement agents they want to talk with terry terry says that says that mr armstrong said is mr armstrong they didn't tape recorded conversations you can't hear what he said and i don't think there's any other way to look at it but the prosecutor said that mr armstrong didn't take the stand this case is gone to trial with some of these multiple actors i think i cite the ninth circuit jury instruction in here which talks about you have to defend that separately ok well we're not doing that because the lawyers often try to get into issues and make the jury think that they have something to say about this which i don't see how the jury wouldn't be deciding and it wouldn't matter whether the jury thought it was in color not right because this i mean the court's already
all right we'll call the first case united states versus royal gre basis upon which the district court dismissed mr green's petition crossed that's also the initial argument the government it's our decision that to clear the statute of limitations her mr green needed to do three things  limitations provision you simply have to claim the benefit of the right and that's exactly what mr green did here i taking a mere its analysis it doesn't the seventh circuit opinion really recognized out of the out of the statu reasons they claim that you can't make the biggest challenge of the guidelines because it hasn't been done before but that's just a different way of saying that johnson doesn't apply in this circumstance and from there they argue that this is a procedural argument we're making the the robbery would satisfy the generic crime necessary under the category of approach other point i'd make is the government's position in a lot of respects on this timeliness issue is very similar to what they were arguing in the second or subsequent context for instance with hoffner they basically said you're not relying on a new rule of constitutional law because it hasn't been applied over here in this context the court rejected that analysis and often we think we should do so we should and the difference is important differences between the man pretty guidelines and the statute such as the on criminal acts if you will get for example the way this court treated the guidelines versus a statute under rule reading or the language me the language requires that we determine what is the right being asserted in the me in the twenty to fifty five motion in cross the seventh circuit as effectively right or a rule is retroactive you have to work to the function of that rule and so the court has to distinguish between substantive rules of procedure rules in terms of their function  offenders are just not eligible for life without parole and that is also where the johnson decision bars as well because it took a certain class and individuals and said there are no wrong or subject to fifteen years to have been alluding to it so under nine circuit right it's clear that at the time of mister mr green's sentencing that california robbery categorically qualified as generic just briefly with respect to the existence of departures from the military guidelines the quarterback are pretty much discounted that as a basis for seeing them from the constitutional problem that existed and it shouldn't matter in this particular context the courts already dealt with that issue secondly there's nothing about the core of beccles that necessarily answers this particular question the court was pretty careful to use the word advisory in every conceivable opportunity within that
and and the city they knew full well that you're a why oppose the center parkway project and for a period of six years two thousand and eleven to two thousand and seventeen there's radio silence on the part of the claiming that this is a legitimate thing for them to do but the fact of the matter is they are they are in fact as a matter you know the reality interfering with the with the efforts by the c r y to engage in its business relationship a long well it's it's a range that they have your honor but it's coincidental and this is the city's position of sort of the ports position also with respect to the fact that all of this is merely a coincidence the coincidentally they decided at this at this juncture to become sort  exercise this right to our t c r y from the from the premises but from the agreement that they have with with the union pacific but it's it's a coincidence that's too coincidental a the issues relating to privilege and concluded in that case questions of fact abounded with respect to the elements of tortious interference and questions of fact abounded with respect to good faith in the exercise of the privilege precisely the argument we're making here ventures decision out of the surface transportation board the port was clearly a commentary and clearly in control of those tracks the theory is the chiefs are why was the one that was doing this on a contract was in control but the facts betray the fact that one to document the fact that his lawyer said the initial thrust of everything we're doing is to get rid of d c r y and that's what they're attempting to do or continue to attempt to do and for all of these reasons we believe that they were back there he was here and for that reason nothing in the record we've heard nothing how much regarding direct evidence retaliation i think that's understood as to be under circumstantial evidence or retaliation if mr talmage is argument is to be taken seriously then we have a serious problem regarding simply has no evidence of retaliation judged by the makes a great point it's critical i think it's part of the tribe or it's understanding as well these parties are adversary they were attacking just antagonism is not retaliat going to be sufficient to grab the role and certainly or another a likeable case would be alan you're right it's not sufficient to just simply say that this is coincidence that's what mr talmage argues that's not met any of the elements of this claim and they can't do it because the court did not knowingly lie the federal government about the obligation to pay unemployment tax accomplish and the case of the of the port nor pennington i mean this is a circumstance where my clients were the ones that were petitioning for redress of grievances and for them to argue that
statutory interpretation in which the lower court looked only at the text of the statute the remedial statute law number one if two thousand and thirteen and ruled that the health care providers of municipality regardless of whether they were run by private corporations which describes hospitals in authority and it's the buildings are owned by the establishment but it's one by hospitals you know corporate for profit organization and their
that a nation or a corporation but and you know i also think that she created the trust in our law and that these branches are the managing branches it would seem that she didn't choose to transfer them to transfer that when she moved to las vegas so they she did make some i guess knowing that was made when she was living in illinois and resume subject to the laws of illinois exhibit number theory which is the ninety nine hour the attorney made when she was living in illinois and i think really the declaratory action
month combined spends strictly on the child excluding housing and food those kinds of things and that number was taken from the front page with the difference that relation may not the financial of the difference of the parties in front of you but i do want to point out
in the documents that were taken that the supreme court said would be really personal to a person including personal bank accounts medical records financial statements and in this case a point beyond that  before judge she realized it was a two six fifteen and i recognize based on your caring and case it's inappropriate because you can determine on the face of the complaint whether the affirmative defense od is on it so i recognize that to six fifteen is mcdermott wouldn't have the same defense if the script rules as a matter of form that the absolute of the should not apply in the circumstances i frankly have a better case against mcdermott for a number of reasons including bad a bad defense would factual similar case that anybody's going to find is the o'callahan case except the one striking in remarkable difference is everything bad occurred in all case occurred pretty soon occurred pre here before this court thank you
conditions change commission remain the same resume working why did you miss from two thousand and five for rule after even after two thousand and seven two thousand and eight in the sense that so that is or appropriate time and place to show that this management it's merely addressing the ongoing complaints doesn't mean that she hasn't appropriately reached and been judged m i based on sufficient evidence in the record to be january seventeenth two thousand and s on indicating that the subsequence that date there were complaints related to the carpal tunnel syndrome not to the issue at hand here
much more efficiently in the liquidation of that fairness than any impact that you have two million from them right and you know already what they have put and they've already put in a million right now that's everything they would have had to pay under the it can they can go into litigation excuse me into liquidation court and make the same arguments that's making here if it thinks it has a constructive trust over the two million that it should have a priority position the pennsylvania court can deal with that the pennsylvania commonwealth court will be in a much better position to decide this issue there's there's no reason to reverse the district or suspension order here in order to have these issues litigated in the hawaii district court on that two million so they can go to the pennsylvania commonwealth court and make that argument that because of the statutory setoff remedy that they should have a priority decision as to the two million so doesn't matter whether the two million submitted only in the motion for can reconsideration by t c that was not part of the record on summary judgment and the district court we believe properly ruled that that was too late if that was going to be submitted in the summary judgment of was of the written agreement and then the declaration of the hofmann who was reliance coverage counsel his declaration made clear that although we don't have the official record
to do thank you
is as a constitutional right brought from prison to the court busy where the petition was filed to personally argue that  totally groundless frivolous motion that says they'll basis the colorful based proceed but by god i want to ever hear you have a title to it or we provided giving this incentive for this sort this applies only is your argument only if a party makes this request of the state that it why can't the courts who has spent this say i'm not going to read this guy because this is this there's basically the starting point whether or not this was a violation of due process rights do you agree that it was not a violation of due process than there is no mirror to the client is it your position then due process requires