MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
issues quite frankly i spent a considerable amount of time preparing my arguments for that mr colossal should receive the benefit of the nov first two thousand and two amendment to section two  one period one eight three of the sentencing guidelines known as amendment six forty which added to the offense chapter of thirty four individuals receiving and mitigating the role adjustment two thousand and two his base offense level with him and level thirty consequently the primary focus of my preparation for today's hearing was terrific is the issue of whether the application of amendment six forty was rea lack of and therefore a viable issue in this deal i understand that amendment six forty is not specifically listed in the sentencing guidelines so action one v one period one zero as having a retroactive  using the clarification versus substantive analysis of substantive change analysis however my argument that m m a six forty simply clarified to get guidelines to squarely a very serious felony which now i could find nothing in the guidelines was moving the district court from departing found as i've argued
the second issue would be whether or not the district court properly limited the fees awarded to the effort necessary and reasonable to achieve the results in the case and th of a right and it takes us back to the supreme court case kerry versus prizes where in this whole question of what kind of relief should be given to a party whenever a constitutional violation is established there are supreme court decided in terms of its interior with regard to the impact that the fees provisions would have a geisha it is fairly clearly that what we want to do is we want to impose for parole at the time there was no reference whatsoever so this transfer to san quentin which as a matter of fact in a change for documents was noted as being not adverse maybe you know like talking  that or is the record somehow misleading that we have the record is misleading you have in front of you yes there's something outside the record that you want to use to correct the record well i did not because as we pointed ou just relief and it says that the amount of the three must be proportionately related to the court ordered relief again without differentiating between damages and injunction then when we move to subsection see in a speech specifically to the managers it says whenever a monetary judgment is awarded why would it not seem to be most in accordance with the overall scheme of the statute  not begun with some of the claims that were that were gliders mr summary judgment would be the minimum if anything at all i can from the point out of the court as was pointed out in our briefs that until the very day of trial the state did not acknowledge that simply sweeps everything else away is it available to you waive any damages and simply go forward with the injunctive relief  claim for damages however it would force the client to be in a position where i would have to tell you and if the state's position is correct you must give up your claim for damages and go forward only on the constitutional find because if you get one dollar awarded for damages corrections was not any longer working for the department of corrections at the time of trial that's the reason why we couldn't accept service for we didn't know where she was any more than he did in terms of  wish what the parties were in fact looking for and once one goes to the motion for summary judgment take a look at the motion for summary judgment which was granted to the state that tells you right off court for appropriate application of the three stations thank you council playing both sides for their argument the case to start with will be submitted for decision
think that those cases can be understood on that basis that they were claims on the contract to the expansion that they were not claims on the contract and there was a third party beneficiary rationale then i do think that the obligation of this court is to heed the direct agents acting on behalf of a corporation and yet if the claims are not based on the corporation's contract or if there's not a third party beneficiary or other rationale that applies you're not bound to arbitrate claims against those individual can or can it does involve interruption of contract that your honor if my clients could not make clear to the language of this contract that they were prepared to arbitrate claims with the issuer of the corporation but they wanted to preserve their right to litigate claims against other part my third argument which is vast as based on current karen law which is developed somewhat since this issue was originally briefed there is perhaps a stronger and more logical argument which was raised by both parties that the real grounds for applying the arbitration clause is equitable stoppel that where all the issues arise out of the interpretation of these agreements or involve in brought arbitration clauses and given the arbitrators the broadest possible power under first options could be found at all by the clause was all three people who are saying they aren't bound by the arbitrators services there are pages twenty seven twenty eight of our brief and that they do treat the issue differently under general contract principles and finally judge thompson in response to your question about whether all the claims grow out of the contract
well turn to the last case on the calendar today a royal horn versus new york city police department several discrimination cases against the department this as they go on for some years now back as far as two thousand which the case was ultimately dismissed because i did not i felt to submit documentation in a timely manner however over the years i've been with the police department approximately one thousand years my evaluations have been  pretty good over the last few years however unfortunately i had to refile it as this case to be reopened again because of the ongoing discrimination and retaliation intimidation ridicule and insults including but not limited to using discourteous aspera ching remarks disrespect for the marks is illegal and unfortunately for me i have endured all of the above and to include with that recently in the year two thousand and four i became a  what i did was because the judge would not accommodate me i was forced to place my mother in a nursing home where she was abused i brought her back home and   my issues with guarding the care from my parents my own my only parent and i know i was their only child i feel that the department used that as another aid to continue to harass and retaliate against me and i say that because they violated the elemental or things that were so confidential they disclosed to my coworkers over years that i've had employment for her and have always felt the police department guidelines i submitted the proper documentation from her doctor and this information was to remain sealed an apple of and take it over to the new york city police department e for them to view unfortunately during that time i had a principal here who is a supervisor and she took it upon herself to open this fellow and divulge my mother's confidential medical home i feel that the department took that and they utilized that as i love their source to continue to retaliate and harass me and and this entire attorney although i started my career in new york city lot apartment and spent a lot of time in a library on my meal my lunch but i'm not on the turkey but i do know when i'm being retaliate against so i'm asking the court to please take in texas consideration my documentation my proof i have numerous witnesses i have a numerous amount of documentation proving that the police department used this as a at work and still keep my mum mr brown warner over your time we have your arguments we have your papers of course which we have and will continue to you will hear from the other side she now raises on appeal which is a claim alleging retaliation and interference with her rights under the family medical leave act the f m l a permits claims only were plaintiff has shown that she was actually eligible if any relevant time period and issue in the complaints when the district court dismissed on that ground the st time it offered coaching thing clear and direct instructions as to what facts would be need to be pled to allege claim and when mr roy horn did not allege those facts the district court again offered similar instructions at which point she then filed a new complaint that raised no such claims
means burglary statue is overly broad days i appreciate add a heart into what justice kagan said in math us that we have always employed and elements based approach for twenty five years and that because it didn't matter everything was swept under the merely the vehicles but there is also one really broad definition as to structures themselves so we don't just have been using conveyances adapted for overnight accommodation which in itself is huge they property from the elements bringing in sheds zebo those kiosks pods mobile storage devices so these are areas that are much broader than generic the other kinds of outlying weather protecting types of things that i have suggested so many people for instance you when you drive around you see these pods will most storage devices that are just big containers you need to protect things from the weather that would be a structure under this definition but i suggest to you that is not maintains that this is a t v made it easy to talk about specific things in maine because these things are part of burley it is really a challenge that the place isn't a structure because the name definition is quite broad but the cases that i've given you in the brief that talk about the to the holloway case and i would refer you to footnote two where these you all addressed situations where a prior circuit case had learning supreme court law in that case it was johnson won i suggest you is now johnson to using math is as now thank you to how courts thinking about burglary and in particular at the time of the sentencing in this case or all three of these cases there are multiple examples that this court post taylor looking at very very as at any rate the defense so for indicated that the result in athens is dictated by precedents clearly it added a new gloss in the way that courts were looking at the divisibility analysis at result the circuit split circuits were looking at this means versus aliments test this issue is going away i think that's although we would argue that this case this court at this point is down by the u k decision when you look at the merits of mean burglary two years ago this court concluded that main burg an issue why should we be getting into it now i agree here are that you should not be getting into it i understood the question to be in the case of casey where there is no fighting from the hideous judge  assert that it was not to the residual cause because there has been no finding having a couple of other circuits come out exactly the opposite way on that issue well i think the other circuits as we discuss i believe we've been over this i totally agree with you if you find that there are entirely because you reject the argument that i made to you that to move these cases that would fall within that category i'm
everybody on notice what it was going to do and how it was going to proceed to make these decisions and you agree that well yes but i didn't  to support that finding a fair bet a sentencing judge percent in some purposes then under our current president who wasn't the procedure wasn't the judge perfectly entitled to take that into consideration  church has to use which is beyond a reasonable doubt but what's wrong with that with the court even after that under our case law saying by a preponderance even though it wasn't beyond a reasonable doubt acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquittal charge so long as that conduct has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence from soho that it seems to you're conservative approach at sentencing in this case because the only two the core members that the defendant actually stipulated that there were two but he did distribute sixty two grams or c sixty two grams of cocaine in february of two thousand conservative approach that it only style those two specifically identified in the recording deliveries of cocaine powder cocaine from lewis or better to mr price that those are the ones that mr price it made it that
claim based on her transgender unfortunately in attempting to effectuate this or it's specific instructions regarding that particular claim in that particular cases or the what i'm troubled with here is although there are a lot of sad and difficult circumstances that your client had as a younger person and at encounter with the police our prior panel included the police beating in two thousand and i got  barger and when he was a little he she was a little person there was no police involvement there so you don't have that official acquiescence component so is it fair to say that there was no past torture as that in order to get past forgery you have to have both the act of forgery and under the i mean cage you're talking about passenger being one of the elements of the larger issue and i'm just saying for the purposes of our discussion there was no past torture here correct t violence that some some of the community community indoors rises to the level of torture perhaps but as your aunt was asking a judge about how do we individual eyes the country conditions for this question and there  nothing in this evidence that suggests that just there has ever been singled out on account of her transgender identity which is the main issue before the court here was it so reali as a transgendered to vidual would be an automatic protection and that that's simply not supported by the record in this case each case is a case by case now says and perhaps in certain decisions i can't even think of a hypothetical that would fit but if certain individuals were guaranteed to be tortured for any reason with state acquiescence yes that that and that's reflected in the country conditions evidence that certainly possible that's something for the agency to the to decide in the st instance the record here shows a bit of a mixed bag and in terms of what is going on in mexico yes the sports precedent suggest seem to have taken into consideration the previous iterations of the case what was considered by our board for example for example the the  require an on account of analysis here we have to it's not a requirement but it's more likely than not basically torture and there has to be a reason for it so it doesn't actually have to be a protected i see here being left with it in the back is the very sad reality that transgender individuals are targets to some degree but our case law i believe makes it clear that this has to be individualized it can't be just a general countrywide situation what's the best evidence that you have to the country conditions or anything else that you think we should look at or if you will the more likely than directed against a person regardless of whether it is a state actor or at the willful acquiescence of a state actor is pertinent to the analysis and then of course the the other
submitted his view she told me such as a lawyer submitted his view i never was there if she wasn't going to help soul i understand normally there has to be a hearing and the parents are before the district judge and hearing there's really not any reason to think that even guilty of cross examination is going to lead to any different solution by the district  proper to say whether the judge is going to come to the same result anyway based on who these witnesses are so forth but just perhaps answer your question a little a little differently if the court is wrestling with the question of but he makes a credibility determination in doing still have we ever held that in this situation or such as this although the judge can use common sense the judge can make a credibility determination based upon now there's a difference of opinion to what happened when she came to court the morning as they treat change her mind and her testimony will be adverse to defend there's evidence in the record that she says no i wasn't going to change
assuming that's all true he still has to show that he himself has been persecuted or has a reasonable fear of future persecution right i mean our laws don't say anybody who's almost sexual in a in a country that doesn't recognize or which discriminates against homosexuals as entitled to the style that's correct we don't open our doors to everybody who claims one of the five grounds of eligibility for asylum they have to establish that they have suffered pas statutory requirement that he filed when he made those two trips back to live he said no your honor but he was fearful during both of those trips he was compelled to return because his father was ill and his father later died and he didn't attend the funeral for fear of persecution later his mother passed away and he couldn't bear it any longer and he went to her funeral but during both occasions to remain indoors and he did not  go out normally in public as a normal person might engage in a lot of people are communicating with a lot of people he was fearful that he might be discovered for being on the special and later persecuted fear of return and he has said that because the documents show dozens in the same circumstances are persecuted harmed detained beaten and sometimes executed and documents al some evidence every reason scofflaw i know your honor i don't think so because he was he was ordered to attend counseling for what he had done and he even testified that the counseling was very helpful to peacefully for quite a long time and during that time he learned that if you returned he would be harmed because his friends were continually having problems being arrested and detained and even on account of their homosexuality that is the difference in this case that is why he didn't apply when he first arrived but that he learned after living here that persons in similar circumstances were being persecuted in this country and that is when he applied for  also the judge and counsel stated that there is no evidence that the a homosexual is illegal that's not required under the law we do have proof that none of a lot of crucial and homosexuals who practice
simple pleasant way that we do now there are several systems of markets one is strictly american it started around ninety years ago it's a mail order catalog used to call it the waiting book  they call job stability not like the periodic layoffs that are common in many industries and you would think that among hundreds and thousands of every day that the individual customer will get lost in the  war back and told him why we had an orderly i told him we were expecting an arrival in the family and were saving our few pennies for that event about ten days later the freight agent sent word that he had been we told him we had ordered anything
made certain decisions and points based upon in accuracies of what has actually happened prior to the decision in that case one of the first things that it talks about is that there is no law there is no authority for this idea that lawful permanent want to unite and connect families and the idea of not allowing you to take the cancellation purposes in this context totally cuts against our policy russia now but moreover we have a long standing policy you know immigration laws where we will give right made by products to that high the requirement that they did not have to necessarily reached out issue so to that extent i don't necessarily believe that we are simply asking for an extension we do believe that this is new we do believe that it applies but moreover in this case
alternative holding that even if everything else were demonstrated even if he was completely credible on what he still did not amount to persecution on account of a protected ground what i'm not saying we're not we're not what we're not suggesting that that question is why is one compelled to find that the threats were anything related to anything other than to his position at the medical facts of this case the facts of this case do not compel the conclusion that any persecution was on account of his expressed political opinion the he testified that he initially received the threatening phone calls question is is there anything in the record which shows that he told the folks who were threatening him that that's what his political opinion was i believe he testified at one point that he told them ambulance that he wasn't in one of them was an attack on a clinic where he wasn't there and then the third one was the attack on the ambulance when he was present but he says that he was beaten the  according to his testimony yes but the but it's still there's no testimony that that was on account of his political opinion as opposed to on account has a failure to cooperate or desire of the rebels to obtain resources which is not a basis for political asylum
that will basically give the jury and the understanding that my that so if the if there was a reversal in regards to the special allegation of lying in wait and also that he went there robbed then it will be basically a sentence for life  confession which is played for the jury even defense counsel concede the petitioner was the shooter nd petitioner admitted to sergeant clark that he went to the dairy to collect money but this was also cumulative addition are told miguel dealing  example he told sergeant carr that he's the shooting was an accident that he was just trying to scare the victims and that no one was supposed to get shot and mission of the confession allowed the jury to hear these exculpatory claims that they would not with otherwise have heard this converted from in this benefit that this was an isolated statement in approximately three hour interrogation moreover the defense called sergeant clarke to testify at trial the petitioner never told him that he intended to either rob or shoot anyone and that's a twelve  collected the money leaves no doubt the pistorius collection of money amounted to an attempted robbery the jury watched the video tape recording showing petitioner rushing into the dairy with guns blazing attached to petitioners gun of the shel actions other the commission of an attempted robbery also other than the lying awake circumstance a prosecutor spent very little time during summation during the scuffing the confession and speaking about the evidence the prosecutor were alive most heavily on the video of the crime repeatedly encouraging the jurors to review carefully that piece of evidence with their suspect of the line and wait as i've argued in my brief this court as has stressed if you entertain the petition  without significantly offers for this and there's a position and that is precisely the case here the titian are cannot benefit from tavia swirly on his challenge to the line awaits us all circumstance each of the two special circumstance find independently result in titian or receiving a life without possibility of parole sentence if the court upholds the robbery attempted robbery special circumstance a successful challenge to the lying in wait special circumstance not significantly affect the position of the petition others that he went to collect money the manner in which he collected the money leaves little doubt that it was an attempted robbery and there's no other reasonable explanation for petitioners actions others and to commit the pro failed to to satisfy those the defense had conceded that this was a nd degree murder the battle was fought over whether or not it was a st degree murder he had argued that there was not lying in the way and that there was not a robbery you that was him in the video well it well in the video of course there's no there's no there's no audio but in the video actually if you look at that video really really closely