MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
in one sentence in its two thousand and four order which may be found on page two thirty three of the record and i quote because some of the plaintiff's concerns may now be moot and because there is never been an actual complaint filed in this case the zoo we we did ask him to do a little bit more the second time around to go try and find somebody who is willing to do this for free but i don't think i've seen a case where we have done the appointing ourselves gone out and found an attorney who's willing to do this probably no power in through the area to find  court is that the record is insufficient in terms of showing a mr hoffman attempted to comply with the court's order repeatedly however in his compelling need situation of being incompetent illiterate and i was able to take away his claims he was i mean were to comply with question did the district court committee or is failing to rule on the appointment of counsel motion before he dismissed without prejudice i do not believe he did then i am not sure to redress those merits here  prisoners can go read the law and file petitions that may have been a wrong decision but that's the law this person can go library and read it seems to me that it doesn't take a rocket scientist  and extreme amount of hearings with the decisions he's already made in order number one now whether or not he feels he should go out and try and find a pro bono counsel following what we've directed in bradshaw versus  over is another issue but it seems to me there under the law we haven't known how we can do anything other than vacate and remand for him to consider the appointment of counsel now that's my current view that you can talk me out of it but tell me how we're going to get around our ninth circuit cases that's where your honor i have a unique position here and i am not here to address whether you vacate to appoint counsel or hartman file a new complaint asking mr hartman to file a new complaint is highly prejudicial without giving him some type of this distance the court in its original two thousand and three order found that mr hoffman is able to create a complaint on his  percent so his pro bono program has worked because of cooperation of law schools and lawyers who are willing to take upon themselves these assignments when we think we need help and we congratulate you on your program and your
myself whether they were reading your brief there's a second violation just fail to fail to research the law around the country and find out that most states don't and the federal government doesn't have any such law whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could find that all of the elements were proved beyond reasonable doubt and we contend that because this is an a t p a case then there is another layer questions and there's no exception in the statute for sufficiency of evidence claims so we see no reason why it shouldn't apply to all constitutional claims including under jackson versus virginia and i think that standard  absolutely answers the question of course it's our position that under whether it's a double deference standard or simply the jackson versus virginia standard a rational trier of fact could find as the state court did in th case but the standard of review is critical in this case and the state court even noted that in raising this argument on direct appeal the defendant seems to forget entirely the standard of review you can draw all reasonable inferences from the circumstances surrounding the evidence and so the state court found here that there was sufficient evidence in the record to find evidence that the defendant intentionally growth his car for the police officer sufficient to qualify as a which said that in litigating whether a prior conviction qualifies as a strike both parties may look to the record of conviction but no further and they all agreed that that was the controlling law and that's what they proceeded under now  required to make a novel argument even though there may have been some cases out there which the hill court did rely on i started in vishal case in a letter yesterday claim could have been made because of course new law is based on subsequent precedents so somebody has to be the first person to make that argument but if you are not the one to be the first person to make that argument because you feel that you  law that you're constrained by that then that's not ineffective assistance we don't require attorneys to be the brilliant attorney who makes that novel argument in any case we simply require the defense attorney to make reasonable choices and it certainly was not really any reasonable in this case for the public defender to believe that she was constrained by state law and in fact all of the state courts in litigating these cases found that that was the applicable la this case has to do with your briefing you signed a certificate at the end of the case that said your proof was in fourteen point base type you know what that word means so those words mean you know what wh briefs and the characters are much larger on a fourteen point basis than they are on the computers who are getting things smaller and smaller and smaller for some of us that have to wear glasses it's getting worse and worse and worse
after four years of journalism i ought to be able to steer a job as a cop reporter i waited to make you city editor on the spot don't wait too long to show your face a nice town what's the idea in the four he sees some of the most beautiful scenes in america on the show fast right where there are no river crossings because every twenty minutes and even more frequently during the rush industrial period hundreds of others telling visitors ride the scenic lines just to enjoy the cool breezes and beautiful views and in the winter the scenery around the gulf is something to remember hi there here we are hello dan and howard i want you to meet my sister died how do you do and my friend mr morial damon how do you know it must be a case of the idea of keeping all number on the cover away from rain unsung hero also can be found all allied building materials and complete stocks are kept for immediate delivery for eighteen years james humanity has served quality food at popular prices today the beautiful roma restaurant airconditioned at one forty four west main street is the place to dine and the food is
wasn't the point of the lower court's decision is that that the request that that it felt was before it went simply a request for reclassification which it doesn't have the authority to do well the first was don't get it didn't say that the regulations were wrong rule that says that's not what is and isn't really in the distinctions whether or not we are talking about a situation where someone comes and asks for belief that is in the form of reclassification versus someone that asked originally and you went to the court of federal claims and i said i should have been classified as why the chorus line kinds of correct that they would not be able to reclassify in those circumstances so the court battle plans all holding was it reclassify the position under any circumstance set right well certainly in the circumstances that we have here i preach i don't want to speak to any possibilities but they certainly under the facts before you they have no right to do what they do and my mandating his i guess the point the government's trying to make is that maybe it's not you don't have a clear cut right to get on is under the regulations you know maybe you're in the game here client was coerced into signing this stock and then that changes classification and either did not understand or if he does understand had no choice but to sign it  to the rule that you cannot of it except in strictly limited circumstances mausers the court cannot does not have equitable jurisdiction but it says one of those strictly limited circumstances is something of it's within twenty eight u s c forty nine the one floyd he's claiming that that was that that downgrade was an illegal act and that he's entitled to reimbursement money monetary reimbursement for the for the period under which he was suffering from that illegal  an employee who was you know getting back to judge all mallees earlier questions were at a certain level and the employee believed after performing the work for a time that the w deserved to be graded at a higher level and so therefore deserves some kind of promotion and also back pay for all those heightened services that the employee performs and in all those cases it seems like the courts have said no you can't have that because when we look at the back pay at the back they act requires some kind of negative personal action that happens to an existing employee and that seems to be a much closer fit to what happened here  will say it doesn't mandate a particular cause cation certainly mandates particular events and the models may entitle to those benefits regardless of what tried to call you out of the the regulation doesn't mandate any any benefits either democratic process prevails over some rogue action by somebody in power after and that's all we're talking about is pleasing force the promises that the government made in its regulations to them as to your understanding as to eligible for benefits once he performs the work he does and that he earns benefits end of story but secondly if you don't accept that which would be going right against by the vino in several cases our site but if you don't accept
surface and the comments themselves where they say is what you say and that we ought to interpret the term term appointment to refer to term appointments in the accepted service because it has a technical median and sixteen come up the same set of exceptions that's right i didn't understand that that was what you're saying i thought you were saying that it is with three sixteen and that we're trying to understand what here but if i can tell everything subsection thirteen exclusions and that was the one that was primarily arguments the one thing i want to point out about that is you look at rosie obviously rosie is very relevant to  the other curious thing about this is that the older version of the statue talked not about temporary ones written stories by excluding employees or photos certain duration so this therefore she doesn't have  the problem is that which retirement system you were in apparently at the time to determine how long you could work and there is no dispute she wanted to continue to work and apparently the  get a waiver of the age sixty one agency chose not to do that so i think it difficult to say on the record before the court what the agency's intentions were and whether they really wanted to accommodate her in that situation because there were way that it claim whether out of her prerogative in title to correction of her retirement coverage the consequences of that are up to her they may or may not be exactly what she's hoping for and it may or may not be the case that she'd be able to be employed with an air traffic controller analogy for the expected service and whatever category she fell into c s r s was ok is that is that add is that the sound of your  out what a time limited except the service appointment is is it what we have here is a time limited excepted service appointment which she competitive service but not exclude someone who had what is effectively a term appointment excepted s appointment only applies to term appointments in the competitive service and what looks like a term appointment excepted service is not a clue but my question to you is why in drafting the exclusions from c s r s would you want to distinguish
code sixteen they were sixteen the first of all in this case we're looking at a misdemeanor so it's not sixteen people we're looking at sixteen and then i think i think the court pointed out to us that five hundred years ago we to go back to re man and then they'd hear whether they should you should get a cancellation of removal isn't that what this is about it is ok so what is there in the record to show that this was this two forty two conviction was a conviction of eighty one and the last section five was clearly we all know that what transpired in criminal court notwithstanding that the immigration judge was not interested in obtaining transcripts we know that it was page and said look we gave him fifty two weeks of classes for domestic violence end of story i have what i consider to be a two forty two and it's a great it's a domestic violence well suppose my client i had  better judge first on i cannot batter the telephone right that that would never be that would never that that's not a battery where it seems to  refer to little cal i think we need to look at these cases as far as the domestic violence we need to look at do we actually have thank you for the opportunity here on behalf  one of the sentencing provisions is fifty two weeks of d v domestic violence counseling and again that's one requirement for domestic again i i think that it's a reasonable inference situation that would be covered by the substantial evidence that's just much as i can say on that particular point you're on  the other issue is whether well i think it's just i mean i think it presents the same the same issue if you're if you're discussing violence i think everything that you know that was said before
recovery process which involves two work conditioning evaluations one took place on top of tobar thirty first two thousand loving the second one took place on november twenty first two thousand and eleven during those work conditioning evaluations she complained of constant pain was unable left greater than ten to fifteen pounds despite these findings for treating physician dr yazeed released her to work full duty on december first two thousand and eleven  he would be admitting to committing medical malpractise it cannot stand that that he can't it is his testimony that clearly self serving that might make his testimony more believable if he's did of course we do take it as we find it however that there is no causation for the nonunion based on the fall she did suffer an injury a minor injury which did not require the subsequent medical treatment and be have a cage implemented and hardware implemented in the at the fusion site that is going to hold the spine stable as the hardware starts to loosen then you're going to have an exacerbation of symptoms her symptoms would have continued reality testified very credibly and if you look at what happened here in september of two thousand and eleven my lady had an unrelated post your fusion that's a different kind of fusion that was done later on and then after this accident f symptoms were from vatican different and dr yasi testified that based on the injections that he did in the testing he did she had issues with a set joints which was a completely new type of symptom and because of those symptoms he had  testified that he saw her on the operation floor i did talk to the floor and she was doing her job she was able to do it she would she was recovering from her prior surgery he expected to have a cleat fusion by six to seven months is what the medical evidence showed and after this accident january of two thousand and twelve he had a few visits with her and then in may of two thousand and twelve he basically said in his records my name hypothesis is that this fall disrupted the fusion process and was therefore the need for the surgery that took place in june of two thousand and twelve in our body fusion not the post here a fusion and a lot of that space because of the ascent pain and if you symptom she had after this accident a completely different type of thing dr yassky was a treat position as well as a reoccurrence witness and he's very credible the arbitrator found that the commission believe that it's sort of the circuit court basically it's a battle of the experts they found that as an incredible david you know adapted his opinion over kitchens and that could be the bubbling of that should be the bulk of it but there's also further evidence that you need to look at and that is these radiographs th anything about any of my alignment about any nine union or anything coming out of place that i mean there is so much evidence in favor of this award then my my argument is very short and we respect the request that you
and i think that there are a number of answers that the first one is well if the government if the government doesn't charge it duplicitous lee like they did in this case and it's just implied it's just in the background that's a pleading rule that allows the government an option to later on using the aiding and abetting ice they seek to if they do speak there's this really isn't a big problem for the government first of all of course as we all know something like ninety five percent of federal cases plead how many are going to have this sort of push for this indictment and how many are going to have such as opposed to this indictment was the governor unable to pick their theory circuit it's clear that the elements between aiding and abetting and the substantive sense are different it's a different means and i believe that the i can't recall the name but i believe the case of the governor relied on most from the ninth circuit in that context talked about an instance in which there was some question comfort to the driver i do believe that you are the ninth circuit law and i think it's pretty clear that the case law indicates that the jury does not have to be unanimous in the theory under which an individual is found guilty of an offense again they clearly have different elements the government doesn't dispute that so i would ask and what would be the alternative test for the certain just discerning if things are different offenses than if they have different elements of the government also says it appears martinez decides this case asked is is it immaterial what what the jury found if they found aiding and abetting or if they found the steps of a sense of course if you drill is the whole is the answer was well if they found that he was guilty something in the statute or something that could be embedded in the statute through eighteen sort of a harmless error analysis lot that doesn't apply ramirez martina's been indicted was duplicitous had to be one of these two remedies of either election and unanimity but practically was an important difference here in not having government elect and i noticed it went along with that and that's
court judge crowder sort of gets it she says while dr wade stack credible but are credible as to that part of the testimony but then she finds that he is credible s to the to the physical examination of this testimony the seventy eight year old testimony deep some vein thrombosis testimony i think you have to throw out wayne's testimony in its entirety is not credible which leads us to the only connection you are not going to politicize it with this is just leskie use of the same knocks on the door as he got with with the prior case and you know i i understand what you said about yes there was the issue there was a intake form filled out in the records that was not part of mr irving absolutely correct that was addressed in his deposition he did state and i believe the that the age was addressed and till the time of the definition you just know it had a parent both this he had the ridiculous pain down his left leg he said that could be the cause of it however he did also have the balding just because of this progressive his work deals with medical condition he doesn't do surgeries but he does do the injections and the pain management  this is him with this progressive lee increasing love back and and pain again doesn't relate it to work fast forward two years we sent him to dr wayne anger plain and he says the same thing that it's not related to work  progressive disorder it doesn't matter if you're sitting on a bus seat if you're whatever it's still going to progress still going about are you and therefore we asked that we believe that there's this fishing evidence based on the physiologist to see if you know what he would read the m r i and see if there were any any active further treatment needed to be done somehow we're going to give the scary bear to work that's the question
that was given given their verdict and just a profile on that a little bit as this case was tried this was the believe issue to ride ability for the theory sliver presented the claims that were presented
treatment for work more than a month before the accident exactly system with the record i think that the old book saying that an expert's opinion is only as good as what's it what it is based upon his persuasive in this case here if you look at the entire record opposite conclusion on causal connection really is clearly apparent i mean the commission it's been fifteen pages saying it was merely the credibility of witnesses there is a medical opinion and i think that the medical opinions it should be relied upon by the finder of fact should have a basis that's wrong that's not the case here it is there is still not good opinion and wrong you know those who really don't go yeah there's i understand but once or salute once not well it's our position that they did not carry the burden of proof coming through with this arbitrator white certainly be the right decision she didn't find petitioner to be credible and i don't think that the commission's fifteen pages still supports the all of the support all of the evidence in support of my client all the medical opinion and support of my client manifests wait there is not a single opinion against us medically in this case it is only the respondents odd things like that the physicians at loyola were teacher was sent to the physicians at loyola i responded course their treatment and ultimately they
backgrounds which present the case before this court is to the immigration judges of the situation which apparently were based on two statements at two separate interviews especially with the earlier one the immigration judge felt that the information provided through that interview that did not match his decoration  his asylum application and has a testimony under oath at the merits hearing we believe that the petitioner was credible through his asylum application that he provided and also during his testimony before the immigration judge and his life testimony before the court at the final hearing it was kerry's statement to the inspector seems to be quite widely divergent from ms later statements is inject him with medication still that he would become a drug addict and that people who were around trying to extort money from him and then  his scar on the left leg was from being shot at by the town people not by the military so all of these things seem to fall out and be different in these later statement of somebody playing their native country where there are under this kind of psychological and physical pressure and they're coming to a new country they may not have all their thoughts are  have agents here in this country reporting back to the native country was fearful of any retribution that might be taken against him so that i believe that's understandable when somebody has a living under that kind of constant fear when they come to a country in the leg i have to look at the transcript yarn to see for sure on the interview i have it here and i don't know if i have enough time to read all of the statements well he believes that come he said in your second persecution should he returned he suffered past persecution and any discrepancies that may be reflected whether it's at the airport interview or the subsequent military group he had an interpreter yes i believe it is the second time he had his lawyer on telephone yes that's correct worn statements he made and we don't usually eat too much attention to the statements that are made just as they cross the border to the end you're much more concerned i impossible that he and that someone he barely knew retrieve the passport and brought it to him in california
counsel for the apple we i do believe that the case is settling except with respect to two of the defendants who also are appellants iraq so