MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
one of those being the ex post facto ground that i'd like to addressed first it is the court as well where there's only one district court case out there gene from alabama that actually makes the decision regarding a new trial on the eight or nine different slightly different definitions used by the court in determining very fortunate sherman whether the issue was one of substance or procedure generally those definitions come down to whether a change involves any additional elements of crime or additional punishment and the language it's her frequently referred to is whether the cha april two thousand and one which was written within the time that he could have still filed the motion and been timely under the new rule thirty three but this this situation is very akin to ross in that he files a motion shortly my client much like ross files a motion for a new trial relatively shortly after the a feel in ross the information was going during oral argument my client situation he respect to why this the lay was there is to whether it was appropriate for my client to take this additional time to file it or not now i guess the fact that there isn't a minute rule sort of are you are you making some sort of tolling argument no i'm  necessarily take time from these defendants we're going to give them we're going to make it three years instead of two from the end of the appeal but if you look at the fact that this evidence wasn't available to my client this is basically the  looking and making analysis that's next post facto argument i think that the records are such that it demonstrates that he was aware of it i think there's nothing in the in the opposite so i don't think there's anything that shows he wasn't aware of it there's actually no language judge much of what you talked about it with my little remaining time i just want to emphasize that this is just impractical language is not readily apparent to a judge just reading the rule and while judge george is extremely qualified as you pointed out
defendant need only presents white evidence that deadly force was required to protect the turd party person and does case there was enough there was more than slight evidence that mr scott's life was counsel the stay on this agrees with my opposing counsel the case is interpretating edwards have recognized this distinction it makes between a first and second stage and dismissal of post conviction petition and state that in order to make a substantial in order to make a substantial showing of the strickland prejudice prior defendant must explain the basis on which he could move to reprise plea and that there is a reasonable probability that the motion to recross guilty plea would be granted defense is not available to a person who provokes the use of force with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant in this case the uncontroverted evidence established that defendant and codefend went to the edge address of the victim to confront freeman over freeman's threat to a friend of their which defendant had heard over the telephone scott decided to fight freeman over that bratz and  found inside the house on the kitchen floor and had gone through an enclosed porch and also there were you know shots evidence of shots fired right by the door against the door fra available in the record which presents one side now the question would be or the question i would have what is it that the senate would need to have done to get to a third stage what could defendant affirmatively have done to get to the third stage in the face of or what effort might be made to get through the third stage in the face of the evidence about which i think there that had i known that that was available to me i would have insisted on going to trial rather than engaging in  district attorney fourteen case defendant stated he was not given a choice as to whether or not to smith of us are included offense as a jury instruction raise attorney the court found this allegation was general and failed to specify that had he been given the choice he would up i know you didn't claim you would have wanted a trial based on this missive beis he did say something to the fact that he felt like he was in a no win situation so he pled guilty
are on two issues here one is you to reduce the seriousness of his conviction from one hundred grams of crack cocaine fifteen to one hundred brings back and then on the second issue and grand they don't have any fingerprints on the two bags and there's no there's no evidence that this was exactly thirty nine re pointing to one percent pure and this is exactly thirty two point briefing you're taking the facts you say the jury was tendered and signed a general verdict of guilty not specifying the weight of the cocaine i mean it must have said more than one hundred grams or between one hundred and four hundred grams but did the defendant attained both bodies from kentucky and intended to deliver them in illinois you know as far as the street value fine issue is concerned first of all i would argue that
to identify the officers in court so the court tested that the sisters ability to recognize these are after is in court the court never tested the officers own that was sort of a mountain out of mole hill in terms of attacking her credibility so look the problem i had when i when i read this part of the argument was this book like a you know there's two versions of what and he says he has no memory of whether the miranda warnings were given and and i found it incredible and i think this court could as well that he said oh miranda so common it's not something i would really notice one way or the other now this is an officer who is trained in a respiratory procedures he is keenly aware and trained to notice these kinds of details the best person on the scene with the least sort of potential or actual bias and he doesn't remember i mean what else would they need well i actually think that maybe i think i need to just be clear i'm not i don't think any shots were fired here i think there was a threat earlier gun earlier that he had it or that that was whatever he threw when he ran because they didn't see him throw a gun so i would like to transfer the waiver issue briefly there's something happening here which is that land issue warnings it's stealing are given for argument's sake once they're given it seems like nobody cares whether they were waived or whether he understood them because the cops treat it that way implied waiver under under north carolina versus butler that simply by answering questions that he had seen the younger start entering questions there was a waiver but that was never decided and then we and then they go fetch the gun in then could be like i said it's better with the confession i mean it's not like the last two cases right don't think the confession added anything it's not that type of overwhelming  and the other would be that we as you suggest go to trial it's one of the whether the other evidence is enough but i think the particular procedure pastor where you have a have a conditional pl a motion to suppress you know the statements and i granted the motion and they said well ok it's not the end the case i said no that's not going to come in but you know the thing the money that exploded and so you know have you have that i mean i think they have enough to go forward but obviously the only issue here is whether or not to overturn the judge's findings in the motions surprised and denying the motions for us thank you and a rebuttal thank you very much i would like to just note from the court the way this was brought up in a district court because i think it's obviously forty four he's arguing that the lack of a waiver goes to the lack you know sort of reinforces that we're very doubtful that there were any miranda warnings read at all so i would say that it came up before during and
benedetti the police showed up at the defendant's house with a search warrant the defendant confessed a couple of days later his lawyer learned that there was a warrant for his arrest and then called and said he's not going to be here because he's for it and the defendant stayed away for four years and this record said that's not enough to bring in the fight evidence and the district court excluded the evidence of flight until the defendant needed an issue on in his during his case as discussed more fully you might brief the district court analyzed a flight soft it matched the description about a half an hour away from the bank about a half an hour after the robbery indo you had recorded call with the police you had police officers witnessing th transaction a police chase from the scene and the defendant's found nearby and judge saying all set on her for all three that wasn't coming in because it was unfairly prejudicial  evidence he understood was coming and it chase itself you know hundred miles an hour and not a residential neighborhoods judged to some of that some of it and i think the fact that the judge wrestled with it and cut out some of it and then cut out more of it speaks to the fact she herself described it is as dizzying speeds and the chase itself hear the court knew exactly what mr west was going to offer for statements that the government made absolutely clear that the impeachment evidence was going to come in if the court all out it to those  comments i think that shows not only did the water down the we got the tape also troopergate says testimony itself at the last minute then government was ordered to dilute that as well so there was no reference to the dramatic shortening the beginning more of a substantive thing to avoid an emotional response with bicyclists talking inside and away packed with that i will respond to additional questions to return to the statements issue alternate watched from all that appears really appears to be an attempt to bend over backwards to sort of give the defendant look if you really think he's gotten all h and you really think that i've got it wrong fine you get it in for knowledge state of mind but the government also gets this very over me not whether he knew he was in fact driving a getaway car from bank robbery or whether in fact he intended to drive richard's away from the bank robbery or whether as he suggested through opening statements richard he had just been duped by richard whom he had known years i think to many he puts that credibility issue when he's testifying without testifying it was fair for the government to have an opportunity to say this this prior conviction accessory after the fact of bank robbery does to knowledge intent and whether he was but folks do it all the time when their license is suspended when they're drunk when they shoplifted when they're on federal probation and they're afraid they're about to go back to prison for a long time and th
company out of frustration for their l because he was threatened to sue is that right yes ok thank you  radical change in opinion and a different way of the investigation was conducted in resulting in that change to pin them and i think there's no way of looking at that with without us knowing back and looking at the full contacts the time and permission to conduct an examination but that's not what he was asked by the employer to do every have been better professional practice for him to work to quell bill but the st time the nd time we
take you made at least according to the lottery on behalf of the plaintiff appellate city colleges of chicago a better company for you today following the plaintiff's appeal of the arbitration commission and circuit court decisions in th matter not appear before this court as well as my highly regarded opponent bill turner an absolute integrity would then know that i must say while i do not agree with the commission's findings of the accident its determination of manifestation data while i do not believe the plaintiff has waived its dispute regarding the issue of accident in the determination of the manifestation date i am mindful of the matter of this weight of the evidence standard and when considering a standard credible evidence or record before this court i cannot assert that the commission's decision proves irrational or that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent relative to the sole issue of accident but i will certain that the commissions find that the the same time dr mass was sending her one her to have physical therapy the issue with the t t c comes down because of respondent did not take her back to work job description to be uncredible and did not give much weight to the finding that dr carroll's amended findings that the carpal tunnel was not the way to work but there was no issue in that with regard to whether or not she needed a there is there's a there's some inconsistency in that because dr mess was always prescribed me additional treatment responded after the i need by dr carole the responded cut off from all benefit determination of nature it still would be deferred correct correct but the party did stipulate that there was a there was a permanency of so based upon that to support the decision that there was the t t should be awarded during that period of time from february of two thousand and six through november ninth the date of hearing of two thousand and nine at the very for hearing the party still be we did see the t t d period from two thousand from february two thousand and six to november ninth of two thousand and nine there was a stipulation in that if we look at the request for hearing
short ted now we will take a recess as we have to change our panel
case the record contains the data from the ailing outline outlining her agreement with the prior attorney and outlining in detail the basis for her there is no evidence in the tracker telling that she ga show that she had suffered any prejudice as a result of this alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and that could be shown by the fact that she did not have an approved piece of the session at the time the motion was filed therefore she was not statutor indicated that she was there's a question there the question said are you now mary single divorced separated or widowed she text separated on the second page of the nonimmigrant visa that says what year was that of this no that would have second page and asked are you married and then she wrote and know and do you have any children she said no of course she was married to his first cousin in the philippines and had three children with him i'd also like to call your attention to the fact that it was her first husband in the philippines who filed that document seeking to just kill an element of that marriage in marks of nine hundred ninety nine and on page two sixty seven the record which is quote never wanted to be married as a marriage would imperil or prejudiced her chances of going abroad so that shows to me is that she is not an innocent party this process that combined with the fact that she herself board indicated that it was not going to look back and second guess the immigration judges and this will findings on the removal order as we know that case is spent before the board on three occasions first the appeal from the the time with decision for review has been filed and after that first removal order and the fine the conception and finding of fraud and the denial of everything that the judge decided that is a final order on the only question before th presented to this court first you do have the problem with compliance for lazaro requirements which is not evident in this record secondly the person tourney whom she now claims was ineffective i don't see any evidence  assistance of counsel in this case at all he indicated that he wanted to get to adjust the status proceed and seek a waiver for that fraud charge which is available he made a strategic there are not arguments vi has ruled off the board obviously when it denies the most reopen denied her claim of ineffective assistance the board did not this is one paragraph to discuss knives you know in the records of the board findings on that that case number two we finish this case and whatever that is over there somebody else because there is a reason for the rules that are established and since so much is to be open and were originally a creature of regulation they're now part of the statute and the supreme court itself has said that they're just savored and there ought to come  time for a fee only fired i believe position well just coming amid what i have so fine taken from there
after he learned of the letter i understand that the loans that mr ball did know about totaled approximately eighty five or eighty six thousand dollars but i thought that after he learned  the time he had knowledge of it was not part of the computation as far as the points for concern on this as the guidelines in my writing that i do it differently your honor my understanding is that the yes our recommendation and the district course some things i don't understand  in everything stop them they had to close the they had opposed the credit union down we don't know that because part of the factual evidence at the sentencing was the i want to talk about before i mean i guess before you know if i understand the feeling if you eliminate the fact that the stabilization of the credit union was affected the thing you can go ahead and reduce to what would be between twenty four thirty points and he would now he had got work to quit hundred thirty three so he would have been used by three points which i have to eliminate as i understand the calculation question about whether or not a credit union stabilization was that you should do that the government did argue i have to disagree with mr press to us about that in our paper is that of course he knew that they were continuing to hike the checks because the gig would have been up the whole idea was stalling out of the buy more time and i don't think that would have been exactly the same the institution would have been in some jeopardy i don't understand what done well the difference was that there was evidence in the record that was submitted with regard to the fact that because he asked them to go ahead and give me time the only way that they could get any time was to continue the checking is that right is that it's going to fall apart or no yes you know what that experience that they're in order to give him time february fifteenth that jeopardy had already occurred he tried to remedy this situation he did it in a misguided what he did in an unsophisticated way as it turned out it didn't help it nearly got him and probably got his
didn't give the city explained that when tell me eligible to apply for the buyback if you're still a city employee that after you've retired you're you're not eligible anymore well i what basis you have that what section of the statutory looking out the says she's eligible that you can buy back time after you've retired in your annuity is  asli oh no that's not want to talk about tell you about the fact that she she took the position that she was told that she didn't have to buy it back until after she'd be tired right that was their visits but if that employee just gave her bad advice that doesn't please the court coming us out on behalf of that leads ms wallace admirably served the city but she failed to follow the proper procedure for buying back pension time and she can't fix this error with a federal suit the district court properly dismissed her amend buyback policy such that she was then not able to participate in the buyback policy isn't connected with her her membership is not protected class and it appears that as well as has abandoned her federal claims on appeal but even under the broader state and city human rights law she needs to allege circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination and her pleadings here just fail to meet that standard she's asking the court to infer discrimination from thin to the extent that she now claims that that policy is deliberately misinforming applicants about the timeline for for applying for a buyback that's not what she alleges in her complaint her complaint alleges that she was misinformed it doesn't allege that that was part of any policy and in fact her her complaint specifically references the nicest policy that perhaps it's applicants from buying back time after they employee has retired and it appears here that there was a misunderstanding that miss wallace perhaps misunderstood about how she would apply to participate in the buyback does she have any remedy or is buyback policy and it does limit buy back to only current members of the pension program and that means people who are currently employed and contributing to the pension program there are a the nice years process to call nice was up and say where i've been misinformed to file a letter with them and she certainly had the opportunity to bring an article seventy eight proceeding if she feels that she wasn't wasn't adequately her benefits weren't adequately assessed  nicer but but the new york retirement social security law significantly limits the members ability or individual's ability to seek buy back after retirement thank you my client i would say clearly it's discriminatory is there any basis in the record for concluding that that the particular action was based on race you say it's discriminatory but i it's p me for what i've heard that this was the application of a statute regarding eligibility to participate could your explain about missing something well the fact that she was told that she could apply
is carefully considered and specifically
able to continue working the policy has two main one was mental and the other one was physical one was a period of time and the other one was on the age of sixty so that means clearly that there was no document so you have you have the s p d with an express delegation to the plan sponsor but then you have the decision being made here by the insurer the insurers agent rather than the plan sponsor what your position on the incident that argue that the delegation plan sponsor was ok and then somehow there's an implicit delegation from the plan sponsor over to ensure what your position that there was no delegation to triple as it actually cited the key case on point the gross case where sudden and said that the district court should no longer apply the highly from her other arguments if you look at that same motion on her graphs three five eight fourteen and twenty eight if you look at her opposition to our motion for summary judg seven fourteen and her reply brief paragraphs three eleven twenty three thirty and forty one apple and argue specifically that this record should find a triple  disability terminations so clearly the district court thought the issue was before and made a ruling so if if you assume for a moment that that's enough to get over the way for issue what language in the plan do you point considers the case and the circuit as you know obviously doesn't require magic words doesn't require specific language it only requires that  claimants made aware of what of the terms of the plan and whether her claim or his claim would be analyzed in a scenario where the session maker h discretion to interpret the terms of a plan to make eligibility determinations and and write what's the language i'm sorry so so what is it here that ok so when one looks at the plan which is with jefferson i would and the way that interaction is described in the plan allows the claimant to understand that the claims would be reviewed and the terms of the point and through thousands and triple last and not by delegation but by the way claimants have interacted so in that fashion and we are if they have the experience if they have the equipment if they have the the the personnel in order to to put into place this  make research and make other things so at this point in time whenever you have something in which you need an x an expert with dealing with something you bring the expert to perform the work that needs to be done but that  i we can agree to disagree that of course the plan doesn't specifically delegate to jefferson parish but the way the plan works allows the reader to understand