MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
board violated mr kumar's due process rights by evaluating his asylum and withholding claims under a legal standard that was significantly different from the one in a fact at the time of his final hearing before an immigration judge which took place seven and a into political persecution under your theory while you are in this case i believe it's very similar to some of the other night circuit cases for example and the ninth circuit victims political opinion and not the persecutors the supreme court found that a generalized political motive underlying the persecutors actions against an individual is inadequate  which required him to present director circumstantial evidence that he rather than his persecutors actually holds a political opinion and that his persecutors were motivated to persecute him because of that opinion since the supreme court standard we're on our b i mean the honest truth is what you're suggesting is that a decision which came down before you went to the b before you submitted your brief to the be a and yet after suggested them shouldn't have the be the first one to talk about this rather than you are that there's a possibility and one way we can resolve seem that they live safely there i don't think they've been in any incidents since the father went to well your honor actually the board misstates the record when he finds that the father wants a power cut and had apparently no problem substantial evidence doesn't support that mr kumar could safely relocate within and yeah but in fact if we're just looking at the well founded fear of persecution which is where we are and then we look at the substantial evidence that's in the record and the substantial evidence in the record is his father has lived in calcutta and presently still lives in calcutta and  not been subject to the same problem well therefore under a substantial evidence standard case is pretty well done even though we can articulate other particular evidence that may be contrary a motion to reopen an account of any new fears or threats against him or his father in calcutta and as the evidence on the record shows him these constitute eighty three percent of the population in india where
all right our final case for this morning is willis against dart and in this instance i believe we are going to hear only from the order it does things that strike me as contradictory it did not it construes mr will says in the letter as a rule fifty nine emotion ok i can understand bab and denies it but then it also adds that of mr willis within the next twenty one days response to the initial show cause order it might consider his submission that i don't understand at all because that implies that all of the rest of this activity that's been going on is something less than a final judgment and that it really probably shouldn't have august twenty seventh so in sense he's taking advantage of what the district court offered but that goes off into the black hole and you know when he asks about it the court says oh you know you're too late you can't file a second fifty nine emotion seems to say that you can't even file sixty emotion which isn't right i mean there's no there's no tolling effect of the sixty p motion so it doesn't have certain impact that it's within a year but that my first concern really is whether we have a final judgment in this case before the february five order that we have before is because we don't then you know then we're in a different standard of review and lots of other things that didn't work right so the way we brief the issue is that it was a bit of a very  vote i understand that's how you briefed it but i'm questioning whether with this permission to respond within twenty one days isn't that a giant flag that the court doesn't think it's really finished with the case and it's going to wait and so you you brief several parts of of sixty b and lunch just about sixty b one he's well within the year for one two or three that's correct your honor and we believe are not only sixty under sixty want to be a relief from judgment from mistaken in his letter to the court in august august twenty seventh mr willis identifies the the mistake that the court made which was that mr wallace never received the fifty ninety most that there's only one sixty b that's correct there is only one sixty miles so there's the lawsuits filed and he never gets the the show cause order so lawsuits dismissed he writes the court says i'm going to construe this is fifty nine but i'm not going to give you any relief so denies an august sixth with this but i'm going to give you another twenty one days comment  reconsideration of the end for a pop or is request or his offer in the alternative you would think if he can come up with the four hundred dollars he's going to have to bit but any way to adjudicate that and let the case go forward that's correct y
have had a motivation to change the references by getting he treating the entire shank with a reasonable expectation of success and either words reasonable expectation of success or entirely absent from the final written decision they don't more discreet question i had when i met skiing and it was a problem that i had all the way through here which was what is it that is the big advantage which the big leap forward by hitting the entire file as opposed to just hitting three quarters also talks about treating the entire family or is that the words entire shank i believe appear throughout the specification of number of places there is not an expressed discussion of heat treating the entire shank versus three quarters to be ripping away wife tooth that's a real problem would be analogous to a teaching which says if you're building us scraper don't use an i beam there's less than a certain her where he doesn't say that the entire because they say the record before us does not include any evidence that the problem he promised ever actually materialized is that the way we would look at it and if somebody suggests there's going to be a problem we're looking at the art with it and we use so that point is additive i believe what the board found you think is right i think i actually think in the in looking at all of the evidence and it's something that inform the word decision i think is something that could be taken into consideration expense and ease of use in going back to the i b m example there's a piece of prior art says you shouldn't have an i b m that's less than a certain river because if you do the building they fall down and somebody says but i can use a lighter i believe it's easier to get
preference and he will thank you to start talking about people and in this we even call the family to unite because then people will start talking against each other so this is the way that shapes o
of the country well i mean there's also the issue of caste persecution in this case too i mean why the question is whether it's getting past persecution and whether that change country conditions have overcome that presumption i think that's  see for the purposes of argument that at the time of these hearings he didn't have that he was past persecution and that he had a reasonable fear of future persecution today they've installed that and now well king or whenever the minor name is there shouldn't we be sending it back for that kind of we consideration well yes i think it could be the immigration judges opinion as been the last the last reasoned opinion is the immigration judges opinion and that's what we're looking at that's correct but one of the problems was it was summary from its also it only goes to the to the conclusions or the legal conclusion it doesn't necessarily mean that the board in reviewing it agreed with all of the reasons and i think for a silent respect especially where there is that to everyone in those villages on page sixty one of the record they say he testifies that they try to recruit many in the village so so that's why the immigration judge said it even if i find you credible with respect to that some armed group threatening your family you have not established their own account of know i think it would be appropriate for the case to be you know given that there have been since the time of the immigration judges decision changes in in the in the government you know when we have a constitutional  what we're dealing with in their effulgence that took place also it's a little bit more difficult because the you know we rejected a strict for us recruitment standard other words that if one is subject to forced recruitment that doesn't necessarily
last meeting the developer try river designs here for recommendation to go to the zoning hearing forward look last month for a variance they wanted to move the building up and keep the driveway where it was would build build it forward of the twenty five foot building hearing all the discussion from that meeting the developer went back to the drawing board member with his surveyor engineer geragos and brought back  plan that basically builds the same size building that is built in the rest of the evergreen village bowman keeps it behind the building line reduce the necessity for a variance and builds the building basically where the building building was shown in twenty eleven part of the building goes into the slope here so it will involve some deeper foundations in the driveway his base is on this with all aspects of the ordinance now correct yes so there is no question of coming mindset all all aspects of the word news as well as they need to change the existing driveway in its present location what's the logic for them since they're having a smaller area green area less play until we know what the reason for the buffer reduced buffer is the character you get to the facts of the unique physical also want to point out there to begin with that that green area along route nineteen is already twenty five feet from edge of pavement or edge of car way to property line a right of way in line so
if you look at the immigration judge decisions twenty eight pages that twenty eight pages thirteen of those pages are specifically set aside if you go into detail as to why mr singh was incredible and it's interesting because there's numerous mr singh appealed to the board of immigration appeals i was twelve pages out of this the numerous points were made by the immigration judge who were brought up to actually about four reasons why he came back and said now look at these issues and across the board of immigration said you know looking what you've given us and then they do look at the whole record they don't just don't look at what the petitions council states and said you haven't you failed to explain the inconsistency implausibilities reasons for not responding to the immigration judge and overall demeanor so sometimes i mean when you start analyzing things that immigration kerry just said you're some of them don't seem to me to and it is consistent are you still contend it's an inconsistency i think it's more confusing i don't think it was inconsistent but let's look at things that work in consistency is really interesting if you look at some of them one of the points that mr singh made was that after he was around the by the police he went to find refuge in this temple and if you look at his testimony the first time he says and this is a pretty important point it was his overall  review of what happened so he said the son sought refuge in this temple the first time he said he did it he said he went for thirty days the second time there was that he said he went for twenty days then when the immigration judge said wait a minute looks in your home looked at your application and said you were there for a couple of honor it's not just the women it's all the individuals in line in the household well therefore when i read all the women means well all the women which might well mean even the women so he and so he was given the all the women right now he doesn't say also all the men who simply referring to my wife says if you take all the women well i know i should particularly concerned about the women that's what my wife says all the women now that doesn't mean they're not also going to take the man who later says i meant everybody right  around page ninety six i believe i think the explanation he's giving at the bottom of one twenty four on the top of one twenty five is the last i caught on in that right it's taken around i think what he's saying at the bottom of one twenty four and the top of one twenty five is or doesn't have much education he offers the explanation that the answers are followed to be not good explanations and therefore everything is always not explained the person is not a credible he is lying in my face  and and all of that when you look at a small fact that i did everything in my city my client comes from a small village it's not possible to do too many activities in that village so that explanation and thank you very much and thank you thank you for coming and we do appreciate
grow up with a country
corporation in light of the fact that the appellant is submitting i will be very brief and then entertain any questions of the panel might have the sole issue on this appeal is whether the court below judge cardiff properly confirmed an arbitration award and says this favor arising from certain guarantees that have been executed by the  the guarantees had not been properly executed under us a the law under both its commercial code and under the governing documents for war algat the panel carefully considered those arguments and or rejected them in light of the fact that algates own subsequent conduct after execution  evidence to their own belief that the guarantees had in fact were in fact valid some of that evidence includes the fact that advanced a one hundred thousand dollars deposit for the aircraft that they signed two letters of credit in the amount of four million dollars plus in connection with the guarantees and leases of the aircraft and some of the conduct of algates own employees one of whom reversed his position diametrically one hundred and eighty percent but degrees between the witness statement that he had put in and then when he took the stand the panel ultimately ruled that the despite the supposedly requirements for from formality for the execution of the documents that the  was bound to an obligation of good faith under section two hundred and forty six of us really ill or it had not complied with our obligation of good faith and similarly under kansas law under the three guarantees  ability have the arbitration awards the sole defense to confirmation below was manifest disregard for the law which is of course still recognized in  the nd circuit but recognize universally by algate by and by this court as being an extremely difficult offense to to sustain and that should only be very rarely granted  allegations cases supported side in support of their appeal none of them found manifest disregard there is no manifest disregard here because the panel specifically considered cannot manifestly disregard law when you acknowledge it specifically address it and distinguish when in fact this court's decision in the este microelectronics case that we cited in our brief  could have distinguished it from the present case on the facts and that's of page seventy nine in the case so that's our view it should absolutely the confirmation should be affirmed and
ninety eight and even if the board may not have made a fact finding the board adopted the examiners conclusions with respect to the launcher to no access bert being applied to some steel beam or arch and we see that the clips of bert are bent and i understand your view that they're  understood is how it's positioned on some structure and so therefore because that's the  there's also the conventional corner be just the very bottom of that as illustrated and as we can see it's you know it's got a lot more with their blanks depending on how you look at it and i'm just curious for that conventional corner be as illustrated in burt if you were to use a wire mesh basically combine it with facts such that you use the wire mesh there for argument was that the combination taught away because allegedly bore is only used for a curved opening and then the nd argument that they made was that the combination destroys the purpose a bird for that very same even about allegedly but is only used for curved openings they did not argue that there were any limitations missing within the combination of their interest that they were required to for to hear from the other side and argue against it i think but let's just set aside this question for future and make sure that with the with the office  office action on page a p p s green ninety seven the examiner made a finding and in that finding he said that the strip is bent along with longitudinal access and cited two figures two through six so there was nothing for mc to have to and if you were to extend this up against the wall this is just to show you but if you are expects then this wire and have it up against the wall that is the longest that is longitud my bendable be need not be cut to the exact length of an arch if a standard length should be longer than required the excess may simply extend onto the street corner it's not against you on substantially street corners that is an argument by amc is making but that is not what is actually saying and you can kind of see that and figure seven where showing that bottom part which is a par and then it might be kind of a start of the curve but if for some reason what that passage that i just read was saying is that it could also be on that substantially straight part per does not discourage that does not say that it cannot work does not say that it should not and so the examiner in the board found that actually does not disclose but is only used for curve curved edges so argument that if you remove the four of which are which we believe is valid but if this court decides that it has discretion to hear those arguments substantial evidence still supports the fact that this longitudinal axis claim limitation is pre questions but they simply i just want to argue that there was a motivation to combine here because the the examiner made a finding as to why the art would be motivated i'm sorry why the art would be combined the a
and we'll hear argument next in united states fee can i go to sixteen two nine three seven morning your hold on one second saying you think that the district court judge wrongly believe that your client was a permanent resident as opposed to a u s citizen is that right and that that mistaken belief but actually that's the issue but that was not to the judge's determination that was a determination of the executive branch works that had custody of your client that's correct that's correct so so why why is the may please the court the morning for the government your honors the sentence in this case was reasonable it was as your honor pointed out a twenty one month discount from the guidelines range which was already  right that he was imprisoned mistakenly as a non citizen judge i tried to look into the issue before before appearing today i cannot determine whether he was issue of him being moved there or for momentarily considered for deportation i'm not aware and i was unable unable to determine but certainly detention in a federal facility would be no different than detention in another federal facility
before in the lower courts were against our rights or constitutionally protected rights and should never been allowed in the lower court they
have not agreed to the settlement of the underlying case in its entirety but during the last argument fact i have reached an agreement with guy goes council to stipulate to vacating judge blocks order in the district court  which would render my appeal moot and i've agreed to withdraw right on that orders we're we're we're withdrawing our appeal as mode because the plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate with made to vacate the order which is the subject matter of this appeal the only subject matter the underlying case you're still exist as to mister conway's clients at least for the moment your honor but there will be no basis for mister com roy's appeal because we are stipulat know correct that's correct that's right and you all agree on that we know this is what we will do it would be very helpful though to have something filed something in writing
and take engineering electrical mechanic and most any cars they can what stuff can be done in the field our research for new ways of doing things the generation of power the distribution of power and the design of new machines
in many places and countless wa the day begins and gives new meaning to the words of walt whitman everything comes out of the people everyday people the people as you find them and them people people just people this is the story of a day in the life of america or people seventy million americans off to work coast to coast corn in nebraska industrial nation on earth producing each year nearly a trillion dollars in goods and services steel automobiles clothes on our back free time the fruits of our free enterprise system a day at the shore a vacation in the country holiday overseas kids fun in the sun and the same for marines same sun difference and then the making of a man america over a hundred and ninety years years young and still building looking for and finding new ways to produce things cheaper faster  more and more on machine attention all bases attention a it's something special you'll see only in america americans with a heritage and culture all their own carrying on and handed down generation to generation country whose colorful yesterdays can be recreated through the magic of motion pictures
percent i'll do it for you though because if i if i forget the lyrics just  again haven't i haven't done that on forever