MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
no one is even sure what kind of explosives are being used or how they're set up maybe mr henderson will have some information for us when he gets in from washington but guy henderson wouldn't tell you what time it is just what is his job anyway he won't tell you betty that there but it's a big one the only answer to a guess it's the same here that we've made because it's the only possible entity but no one has ever been able to make an atomic or a machine you mean no one on earth ever had three this rocket we're going we'll be able to fly to the moon maybe someone up there is built one that could get down fightings is still working yes he has to to use it for reagan he's being used because he's black it's probably being operated from the ground and if you could get to the scene of the attack you might be able to find some clue to a rocket ship is leaving here in five days to investigate mode i did not believe the earth meant that to keep capable of making the journey i just learned about it myself but i'm sure my information is correct very well and it is not too serious we would be prepared to take care of the visitors when they arrive every move i see you have adopted our language all our people are required to speak english so we can operate more efficiently in your country mind telling me why all men are carrying out the campaign of destruction on earth on the moon we have an element of neri which is far superior to your aim at the base for atomic reactors and we can completely control the force to be leaving us to build atomic weapons ranging from huge cannon to these small  very considerate of you to give me all this information some reward for your long journey unfortunately i cannot permit you to return to maybe i have something to say about that
involvement of the landowner and there's no reason in a day to not have a four great area if you don't have i mean why not just say and he's my granting the government the right to do everything and well if that is what would probably do the job i mean i think i read it the suggested easements can take many different forms and you have to make sure the government's going to take this land into the program that you're going to be able to implement a wildlife wetland easement conservation plan and part of that agreement was of the government would go back with revise their plan and would include compatible use of standards in their plan and then they came back after the settlement conference and said no we can't come up with photos it's premature to thousand dollars worth of improvements that was all before the grant and this was uncontested you know the grant occurs the land owner takes a substantial sum of money and there's no spiel about that and the government comes in and says no no we're changed our mind we're going to revive the conservation decided to take it i want to save a couple of minutes for rebuttal i do want to make a couple of points though i think the regulation is very you know very clearly show that there's a need for an agreement one you have a seven c f r section fourteen sixty seven point  bill also had landowner approval language the fundamental point is if that language also did not make it into the final fashion as for the agenc several things wrong with this argument i don't think it was raised a lot of big meadows discussed the agency manual below but as i read the briefs below it meadows was directing everything toward statutory arguments argued that no answer was filed the discovery occurred but it's very clear that one of the alternative issues advanced by the landowner big meadows in this case was the failure to have provided a for them a restoration plans for there for the failure of the landowner to understand what was going to practices fencing is going on and they're trying to get court approval to start doing the stream bed restoration but in one of the plans they specifically provided in there that hunting  are helpful for your argument
were also there was a question of whether he could solicit those customers during that one year period and there may have been other information that was confidential you say there may be another information ok best argument it would appear that you have is that there were four factors to be considered yes the district court a footnote to its order considered suddenly only one yes the first rule to be considered is likelihood of success on the merits and you're saying but with regard to that particular matter your client should win because in that very of consideration that's true but you have two equal grounds here so either one of them when you have to be grounds i don't think it's fair to say that both of them well i think that's i think that's subject to to question whether they're equal grounds that is usually an preclusion that has to be ruling has to be essential to the judgment and it seems to me there is an argument that the second grounds is not essential to the judgment i'm not saying it of the industry outside fresco in a relationships that's not the case here mr mr hawkins came from outside the industry didn't know anyone or anything we had been trained from the beginning consideration and met all the other standards we disagree with opposing counsel about whether it's reasonable but the point that fact is we're only looking for twelve customers which i think you shake the analysis there as it showed us the nature of the trade secrets  known who actually controls the purchasing decision within the company it may be different for services which were purchased from fresco for materials the packaging materials you buy the coffee and for the major equipment purchases is often someone different after the person who controls even if the customer doesn't know themselves ok thank you very much just gone straight through some type of merits for hearing where we couldn't do that your honor because the judge just a couple weeks after the injunction was put into place the judge scheduled an arbitration the contract because those contracts depend upon misappropriation the terms appropriation is defined as is not just a sales person going in being in the same business for a competitor it's defined as
three minutes rebuttal yes because the observations of fellow officer officers i plainly granted here even i just don't know how i don't know how trying to make sense in this case i can't imagine officers walking around with booking sheets i just don't know that that's something that you do because they have a booking sheet you have to pretty much check all actually three even considered because she as well there was a do you determine if he remains in custody after september twenty sixth and truthfully that is so because you have here two officers one based on his knowledge tory because a document that identifies him as being in jail on a date other than the actual purchase you can draw many inferences from that one of those eyes or i was just saying is that he remained in especially when you consider dying while saying this court found that weather was one witness identifying the suspect another one that denied and i suspect another person who provided alibi for the witness and that the physical if you combine that mr goodman was in coaching in three different facilities during that week so this particular document had to have printed before he was transferred we know for sure you just answered this but always present the serious yeah they always present themselves but we're not we're not talking about what goes to the jury we're talking about have a book or us what is in the officer's mind to believe that he can arrest this individual
of the judicial proceedings and what the court held and hollingshead was the friend that had been sent to prison two separate occasions he was sentenced to federal prison for seventy eight months he served i  over half of that and then on supervised release he was revoked and sent back to prison so there's no way he would not have known that he was a convicted felon and particularly in the context of th and went back to two thousand and one when he was convicted of nd degree burglary he was sentenced to three years in prison he was released on parole three separate times each time he was revoked and sent back to prison in two thousand and four he was convicted of crack cocaine near an elementary school he was sentenced to ten years in prison and he was paroled after serving about half of that time after serving about five years while he was on parole he picks up  facility and he was to three years now there was a conviction document were admitted at the trial so there is no way that this could have possibly affected the outcome of the proceedings  o question that it was her correct answer that's correct so on redirect obviously the government was allowed to clarify and on redirect the prosecutor security i think when you're looking at the explanation provided by the district quote the mr quote was obviously concerned about about mr harris's criminal history and he did refer to that criminal district court had the opportunity to review a very thorough p s r now this pre sentence report it went into a tremendous amount of detail about the aggravating circumstances and also the medical leading factors it went into a criminal history history category which is the highest and you just got a lot of convictions on your record now and frankly had the guidelines been higher i think it would be appropriate that you get more than one hundred and fifty month objection had been made then the district close would have been in a position to clarify or further explain the reason for that sentence and that's why i mentioned the district court's comments here regarding the sentence they need to be viewed in pulled over in the state of illinois and he had a gun in the vehicle at that time so that this report was understandable about mr harris is a consistent pattern of criminal activity over the course of twenty ground there are certain to bring back down to a certain at the top of the guidelines which of course is presumptively reasonable on appeal if there are no further questions i will rest thank you
well here the final case to be argued or at least half of it  actions counted a strike should not have counted strikes against mr escalera in general there's two questions presented in this appeal concerning the text and meaning of section  fifteen g st i'd like to addressed the question of what was dismissed was it out of the statute refers to an action being dismissed and then after addressing that i plan to address  the grounds on which the action is dismissed in the context of both issues however i want to emphasize that courts generally agree that this inquiry into whether a prior dismissal counts as a respect to the question of what was dismissed this presents the question concerning so called mixed or partial dismissals first well i believe there's three compelling reasons to conclude  very quickly refer to the courts that have ruled the way that we asked this court to rule which is that the entire action must be dismissed in its entirety but most recently as we brought to the have concluded that the majority of circuit law that the entire action must be dismissed for the numerator ground is more consistent with this court's jurisprudence so if that is the deposition transcript the mere fact that the state in that case didn't move to dismiss had to take mr escalators deposition is a strong signal that this is not one of those cases where the grand a summary judgment is based on a numerated ground and certainly is not expressly stated in the orders of the court there we this is at least the th lawsuit that in brock and all of them have been dismissed one way or another some as you say you know on i'm partial but does it not undermine the purpose of the statute i mean he's now being able to repeatedly bring these cases and wind up being dismissed are you asking us to read the statu the language in twelve b six and that is why we argue that those rulings as opposed to some other circuit courts are correct in saying that a dismissal for failure standing claim that is without prejudice should not count because the understood meaning of the term for a state a claim if it's on qualified suggests it's a determination on the merits with prejudice so in the orders here where the dismissals were without prejudice that brings it outside of the scope against at the federal court see it may be true that certain claims will will not be filtered out however that faithful that reading is faithful to the language of the statute and it will avoid staking too broad of an approach which would foreclose lead against from accessing the courts and you know certain examples that have come up where yes there could be a decent policy argument for why that should count as a strike see my time is up so unless the court us questions on the other issues all of defer the brief an ask that the judge in of this missive be reversed in the the case be remanded for further proceedings and instructions that mr
supervisor or maybe more than one or one submitting your time sheets and i wasn't sure i understood exactly what that meant could you explain place yes that was  many previously and the last one that i still made it and what other actions do you believe constituted retaliation against you for filing a complaint or no i don't know if you have your papers and if you i have altered the conditions of our employment he says after the supervisor said he was infatuated with her and she told him that would in the relationship because she didn't the relationship going out to either players or movies she also alleges that they are after he told her it's double or nothing and you've got to go out on two dates or they'll be a consequence to me while the purported transfer her contacts to a new phone he said after she told him she wanted no for the relation amorous relationship with him or even dating he said to her here's a task you have to do and if you don't do this if you if you don't go out on the dates with me i'm going to give you the sex reassignment your honor i got this was simply part of her job to transfer a context or no phone this is not any sort of right of any serious consequence to her i don't mean to him as a supervisor you get to tell someone that they have to do any task even if it means moving the pencils around on  work environment or you have to show that you have suffered an adverse job consequence that's a general rule when you're testing the supervisors remarks i understand that but this is a supervisor who has first invited her then told her he's infatuated with her then been rebuffed and then tells her she's got to do certain things that's not just the same as as in general saying i want you to get your phone fix your honor that the court found that at first under title seven that those claims based on on that conduct was what bar   saying what defense we may or may not have to that claim if it's part of supreme court but the district court dismissed that claim without prejudice and the court claim said that it could be rebought and supreme that these were simply friendly outings the fact that the supervisor and person spent trying to ask her out when she then understood that it was romantic in nature that does not meet the very difficult standards to establish me i believe that they violated my rights and i believe that the agency is responsible they are liable for what happened to me for the psychological damage is
way multiple residences were searched multiple people were arrested their car searched the multiple values of controlled substances and whatnot controlled substances seeds there are many many documents it's moreover titus wasn't with regard to the first issue of effective assistance of trial counsel i think the issue that is being argued is the truck council is ineffective for having done two things and i'm unclear as to whether or not actually the first is made in the petition by  show what type of representation he received a trial and i think it's incumbent upon the offended the point to that trial suggest that he received representation felt alone objective standard reason i think that's what he's  he's guessing first of all the statements even take it true which i there's no evidence to support it there's no affidavit that suggests that i mean what he's saying is it has a failed to do anything for me after that well if that's shouts that support the petition or shall state why they can't so if he's claiming that his counsel refused to act as an attorney should have after a certain period of receiving he needs a point  doesn't matter i think the reading of her testimony is i tested these two items i found cocaine in both you know that i have total of their weight is two hundred something grams or whatever grams were ha testimony isn't bigness and i would care to differ and i think the trial judge is well i think everybody else before this that there's nothing here and there's both justification why aren't this is that they did additional time some reasonable probability that we're going to hear additional evidence and i don't think he's offered but he goes any suggestion that he has anything for that reason i think properly rule the sort of issue you raise and effectiveness of trial counsel the only other affidavit you get in this particular instance would be counsel's affidavit and counsel is not going to be part of oh they are not going to be willing to prove the weight of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt on the record and finally the state says that the weight doesn't matter it doesn't matter it's an element of defense of controlled substances truck substance trafficking of one hundred to four hundred grams of cocaine while there is no affirmative
their orders and then repeated it and the reason i say it's clear is because as in brown's under the old the former statute mr lee would have been released because he received a diagnosis of no mental or emotional disorder to the board psychologist wrote to the new standard if you  finds that the present prisoner has the mental or emotional disturbance deficiency condition or disorder predisposing the prisoner to the commission of a crime to a degree rendering prisoner a danger to the health or safety of the community the board may order a postponement round three seventy nine at ten ninety one crime to a degree reading rendering him a danger to the safety and welfare of the community that is the exact language of the new statute hasn't the only faster  consecutive crimes he got sixteen months even considering all of his crimes all four of his crimes he got a total of about ten years and had a release date of one thousand nine hundred sixty the board in doing that looked at the necessary to protect the public or to impose a proper spank chance for mr lee so they had already decided that before the law changed what is going to be and only after the law changed the newport the new three member board cholesterol goes on to diagnose petitioner with personality disorder with anti social and passive aggressive features there's nothing to fear and move over again and it's a finding that the board piece that we have to work with it has to be a diagnosis and it has to be adequate there is no state law that says a personality disorder under d s m four or the d s m classification system is going adequate or insufficient to support the board's findings that's petitioners argument that a personality disorder is not good enough christians and didn't say that what christians the reason tools of a personality disorder when it's apparent from the psychological evaluation that the potential parolee has recovered from the personality disorder that's not good enough you can said the same thing if there are some signs of a personality disorder that's not good enough that was the exact issue and aro came out and the attorney general's office consider a consider of what to do with that opinion and how to advise the board we had all of those orders that applied the new statute withdrawn and we have the board we consider all of those just residuals or some leftover signs or a few features of the diagnosis we know that's not sufficient but if the psychologist so does this individual has a personality it's personality often psychotic but that's certainly a major meltdown or mental illness as we know access to includes the personality disorders and mental the facts like mental retardation that they used the old standard but actually using the new standard and again i think this is clear from the record because as judged by you pointed out the board says the board finds and we know that in the history  currently have a problem no your honor because he would have been released under the former statute because there is a diagnosis of no mental or emotional disturbance and the loss does that he would have been released under the former statute and that's
the second part of the section for the f to the cinema only deals with terminations of the whole agreement in the event of death or disability the only time the best referenced in for i first of all that they did not receive everything that they thought they were going to receive that there was a short fall on those old piece of evidence that they are relying on here it is a spreadsheet which was created specifically it in some and in some places it talks about the terminations of the agreement in another place i say it talks about the if the employees of employment with the company is terminated or those interchangeable that those terms mean the same thing is the implicit agreement terminated when and if the employees employment is terminated well you didn't you have to kind of work your way through there but i for example i note that there appear to be some obligations under the agreement to continue after employment ians like the confidentiality  obligations so i was just curious word whether it's your position that determination of the agreement means this or that ending of them of employment is the same thing means the same thing as terminations of the agreement for example in the in four d that they used both of those terms in that in that paragraph my question there was a previous draft record three well i thought there was an earlier version that said if employment is terminated the company will have no further labial at the under the  agreement provided that if the agreement is terminated as a result of death or disability of the employer the company will continue to play the bisaya the base salary for the balance of the five year term i don't