MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the appeal system and so on are four years from the the answer is yes they do have issue that word or and and the v a to respond accordingly and then there could be a question of whether it was appropriate response but again there's no reason that the veterans
necessary to ensure that the power to grant a mistrial is only used with the greatest caution and you know the generalities i mean a supreme court case that shows that this circumstance a conflict of interest of coun substitution counsel precludes a finding a mistrial in this case when our issue is is that once it became clear that counsel had to be substituted because of the conflict the trial court could not declare a listing establishes that yes i mean asking you about the next step is there any supreme court decision that shows that circumstances such as this are not manifest  a court acts contrary to or and reasonably applies constitutional law as enunciated by the supreme court exactly and so on asking you which the current court decision should i look at because i couldn't find one future that's a long future you're i would argue that in some ways it might make the jury service less burdensome it was this trial with us from in the last six weeks i believe that some jurors my consider it a benefit to know in the future i can plan that you half didn't make sure that the finding is based on a real fact that at best means that you're if you want to call a dictionary definitions you conceded i think that you have no supreme court decision that says that you have to hold the jury for four months or for some extended period of time rather than let him go and found a new jury or else it's double you can see that you have no case that says that there is a manifest destiny unless the judge first examined the jurors to determine whether they could be available after such a long time you basically conceded that all the way and what you're saying is we should look at dictionary and look up the words manifest means it's showing you can perceptible right now necessity means it's really really necessary not just desirable if i got your argument right i don't believe so your honor first of all i think any more to it tell me because that's the way it looks to me relied on assumptions about the general burdens of coming back in four months but in the end you're in the same place of bonuses all about a jury hardship i don't understand why you're talking about this for one thing even if the california courts had made a decision that was contrary compelling it wouldn't matter we couldn't grant the rich because of the way the statute is written and has to be supreme court for another bonus is nothing like this insult it was i think the four day trial it's really important once the jury is warning that a trial court really take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that there's a factual basis of their the judge he didn't even know that they were going to be paid took it from the i can't guarantee that we haven't deliberated yet
patenting issue what is what are the top three reasons for example why you think he was wrong in concluding that there was no reasonable expectation of success the first reason your honor is that it you really mean he discounted is it because he didn't believe that they were they were particularly pertinent to the actual inquiry right correct and i think that is that really a factual question to get back to judge so there was no motivation
honor this is a case where the district court misapplied a departure guideline the district court departed thirty some months to reach a ten result had already been factored into the guidelines for and this court's law generally says that when that is the case that factor is not a cooperate departure ground under united the judge you know the just to court itemize certain certain certain similarities but not in my reply brief i use of some yes that these these offenses were marked by as many dissimilar details  factual find by the court on these that these were starting with similar is where in at the court's decision to then apply that guideline is an abuse of discretion now admittedly as i understand it after mohammed this court now treats sentences involving an upward departure as simply under reasonableness review and does not focus as much on whether or not the departure similarity between the prior and current offenses is not considered when computing the criminal history category the parker for this reason is permissible does not undermine your position well  you've got to offenses here how many years did you say were involved in this other case how many or five yes and if so what's the standard of review that we have to apply and review in the actual district court well that's a good question i i realize we're cutting we're making judgments and we're making we have to distinguish and between what's more serious and not it's clear is it not the good the that i'd like to ask you the same question that i asked very counsel for mr morrison what from your from the government's perspective is the standard of review that we are applying in this case your honor you have to review the facts in this all on the same page here the court was justified in applying this the question i'm asking is a question on city was the court justified in moving from ford to him what's what's the government's position on that morrison is not arguing that the district court imposed in a reasonable distance because it failed to give specific reasons or you failed to show consideration of the required statutory factors short shrift to the extreme amount of physical abuse morse and had suffered in his trial hood and basically responded to that information as seen that this information only compels me to believe me incarcerate yeah that's a record five zero seven five zero eight yeah what more could the district for him have to demonstrate that it had considered his background childhood background that sent jones i think a good considering i just don't think the court heavily relied upon a ground which has not supported increases in sentences from the guideline range least in this fashion and to me it doesn't make sense to then say nevertheless the ok that's all right the sentence is reasonable i also think it says that the years of work by the sentencing commission in courts in determining what grounds justify upward departures and outside garner instances are basically shelled so i think that type
pounds with bad side would be the same thing without the restriction i mean you know whatever injury he has is an injury sholay to his wrist only a few other where any of the claimants disabilities traceable to a specific injury to the arm no other than a fall on the four other there is a right the arm was not involved no you medical examination which i agree with the need for the fusion surgery which petitioner did undergo amnesty ten pound lifting restrictions he is now i only use an a t m machine disregarded this ten pound lifting restriction it's put in place so your argument is to commission period because in your argument the commission was supposed to give separate awards to the claimant would you separate body parts the left arm in the left hand korea cover man is a whole benefits under eighty two the claimant is required to prove he sustained injuries which partially incapacitated him and pursuing the duties of the usual and customary line of employment correct yes your honor that's the way the statute r
discussed in our brief the probation office echoes our position on this specifically the p s r states that there's no other evidence such as surveillance or third party cooperation to support the idea that the defendants told marie c cases are sufficiently distinguishable from the matter of the bar and in fact strengthen our position as to why the court erred in this regards starting with us you know this court held that the district support calculation of drug
my arguments i'd like to mention that i was not the attorney of record in the underlying proceeding and actually i wasn't even the attorney who filed the response for to be on a high came on board when the petition for review if you just read the decision of the immigration judge you get a sense that yeah you know maybe something is wrong in this case then i went back and actually read the transcript then i read substantial inconsistency between his testimony and the questions that was asked to him at the airport or that scene called variable in application and i'm going to go over to some these let me get to the point that concerns me and maybe you can address that and the point that seems to be central is that he claims to be persecuted as a sunni all of those life true perhaps from our sort of suspect point of view someone has a secret identity bad things happen for them when you think it's because somebody discovered the secret identity but i've seen them consistent converts to going back that on that specific question i think the answer if you read not just the judge's decision but if you read page one forty three one forty four and one forty five you get the sense that the question is within the immediate family and friends whatever in manufacturing these rockets or whatever there's nothing anywhere in his application or in his direct testimony that he says i had a government job all he said that ninety three to ninety five which is the two years that he served in the in the military he was that the insulation the very sensitive but evolve this operator was not they think that because he has access to some of these communication or whatever of course he must have some kind of clearance or whatever but he never claimed nothing in the transcript or the
knew that he was not producing reports that even matched standards by any means under the under the a p a they the social workers were well aware that if they didn't know the reports other than that there was no chance of her prevailing in juvenile court and again i must emphasize that she had successfully done everything that the court wanted her to do and again i must emphasize that there was a mother and the children and the social workers didn't want that why because mrs wellman stated specifically there will be no change in the custody order and it is for that the girl's reasons i believe i've shown well judge underwood graham what we have here are merely conclusory allegations and a number of ignitions that give alternative explanations for what really went on here for example that peach sixteen much discussion  the conspiracy was that social workers brought out the sexual relationships are ellwood with her husband her husband's brother her other husband these people have axes to grind nowhere  agenda anyway and the further allegations are seventy three seventy four seventy eight eighty two eighty four in ninety i guess delaplane there are seven eleven twenty four more importantly more and according to our allegation is telling a friend
but not a basis for finding error in this decision under the case law that i have here and yeah that appears to be the case so the other two arguments so on so what's your best argument i think  in the absence of direct evidence refuting it given the state its record is he was the l j required to accept the pain testimony in the absence of direct evidence to which was not done in this case or the other one as the his reasons were functional capacity he says that he could do medium work and deficits and their review of his functioning capabilities the other thing goes the substantial evidence when you talk about somebody letting fifty pounds twenty five pounds  also go to you know what they think in their experience and based on their knowledge of the patient ok all license has limitations correct let me ask you something else then the claimant testify that he rejecting the more extreme limitations resulting from having this gentleman says he has to lie down often but nowhere in the record as it say that and it's and it's not a matter of the absence of cooperate in clinical findings but reject the specific testimony about his need having to lie down from time to time during the day which is able to altogether according to the yogis own expert it's another that was dealt with so i don't see how we can say but he's also stating that again i would ask that the the court look at the entire decision based on based on the record ok thank you thank you
he could not enter this particular building because the people in the only did not like him he was told he could not walk on the sidewalks outside of the building because the people in the building did not want to see  these sorts of restrictions because they had been in place for a year if that were the case there are problems that we had two years ago in the deep south would still be there simply is not and should not be the it i also have a significant problem with the district court's refusal to consider the evidence of discrimination that mr must present in his marriage systems protection board case and number of indices  and more importantly very simply no authority for the proposition that the fact that a particular action has been resolved and so that's no longer racking evil means that all of the evidence that was and that he met that particular requirement and he should have been allowed to proceed to trial into really the only point i want to make at this point you reserve whatever time i've got is formally present and you know given that and given the recent incidents in need of violence in the workplace and you know incidents that we hear about how lovely from time to time you know it has an obligation to try since it whatever it can to maintain a response from the beginning that after the suited been filed claims will be settled down and it was a mixed blessing being there because people were picking on the well after time he asked to leave can twenty eight so that supernanny indicated that the court did look at the marriage service action for an action he did consider that that's not the case according to my reading of the judgment my indication thing with regard to the incidents that have been alleged there is a good basis for the government sanction first of all there's absolutely no evidence that mr was ever threaten
council and that's what really grabbed my attention was that the white tells the story that's quite different from the house one story and that is consistency so just begging to be explained but the husband doesn't come to the hearing and he doesn't send a letter or sworn declaration or any anything to explain why that's so why isn't that enough for the  we don't know what the test what do we see and used we see only the decision of the judge and then based on i think adequate which says he said this and he said that and unless it's been overturned on it be incumbent on the white at her hearing to say no no the judge was wrong my husband really didn't say that here's the transcript that shows that the judge made a mistake my husband did not really say that he said something relies on the transcript of the oral the station it seems to me that the white could then move to reopen and say no no the judge thought there was an inconsistency between what my husband said and what i said as he relied on the transcript of immigration judge was there an opportunity at the hearing to have the transcript brought into evidence she brought the keener decision thread opportunity for the other side to have it supplemented by the actual transcript i think there may have been short answers if the transcript of the variable of the answer would be cast but if you take a look at the that this argument is well taken then to ask about precedents i suppose i'd want to know what's in the transcript that explains away the problem or shows that the husband didn't really testify to that have we been given the transcripts from the husband's hearing that show that the i g in the husband's hearing was mistaken the answer is no i mean there's been a lot of time  subsequent to the wife's hearing when those transcripts could have been dug up and something could have been found that and it shows the mistake has been made here we brought in at the end of the fourth an it sounds like an empty chair defense to me i mean what i used to do when i was defending and if there was somebody else who was involved and was not a codefendant i just blame it all on him and that's what it sounds like blame it all on that transcript that isn't there but in this case don't we what we have here is that the husband lost and almost immediately after he left the wife picked up sold whatever she had and took the kids and took the twelve year old at that time the question is the state's don't quite align themselves for us and that remains an issue and i think that's something that could have been taken care of by the trial judge simply by saying i want that transfer possible turn about the fact that the transcript was never in front of the second interview i did your honor your honor as noted earlier that's immigration has meant going on for a significant amount of time and there were several opportunities during which petitioners regarding her husband regarding the decision that had been rendered in that denial as well as acting her directly is there any way you can explain this can you tell me how you can reconcile these two completely different stories
five factors don't exist because the case was never actually litigated before a trier of fact it went by the fall judge and when you look at some of application and i don't see in your brief we went through and analyze the issue and to show that standard under idaho one one that  or two that the standard tender idaho for this particular statute not satisfy you not discharge ability your whole attack was done the superior court didn't have because this rose out of work this this was a workers compensation issue i would agree that that was the major focus of our work in a time at the time ok but we did reserve that issue as i pointed out  mere allegation of willful unprovoked act as a political action with the willful and malicious requirement of five point three eight six i think if we look at this court's recent pronouncement in race two we find that we've my name is scott smith and i represent scott the mangas to begin i with regard to the prior argument i just want to say that i think i have met high powered attorneys from pocatello i'm sure there decision it does have close to the fact that not only are we just sitting here looking at a trot horse decision but it has gone to the idaho supreme court who was the firm that not only affirmed it on the jurisdictional question but actually in that default judgment so it's not appealable now we are not going to draft a factual issue i point that out simply to say that the factual issues were resolved with the default judgment supreme court said it's jurisdiction we're not going to look at those questions when we're talking about now on core issues which are decided by a state court today must be given a fact and in bankruptcy court as they were in this case i just want to point out one of the thing and that's
cult rather than analyzing what they do in general what is it specifically that you think happened that was not sufficiently articulated is a basis for the final decision sure i mean they point to the specific references action which is that if in fact you were to case where there might be more doubt about what the reference teaches one might need to give an explanation beyond citing to the specific paragraphs of the reference and this image here this is pretty simple you just look at the i can tell you each time that it is presented it is presented as a lo
good morning your honor is may please the court john greg jr assistant united states attorney for the southern district of new york representing the commissioner the commissioner correctly determined that mr coach was no longer eligible to receive s s i benefits as of march first tw based on an application of statute that limits eligibility for non citizens to certain federal benefit programs mr coach would qualify for s s i into the controlling statute by virtue of his grant of asylum in two thousand and two mr coaches however was only temporary because the statute limited to zeljko only for us aside for only nine years from his grant asylum the statute does permit continued eligibility of certain other exceptions are met however mr coach did not me any other exceptions and therefore his benefit eligibility ended when the nine year period from his grant of asylum had run just to give the court some background as to what happened after the district court ruled in this case mr coach who did in fact reapply for social supplemental security income benefits in september of two thousand and sixteen in november twenty sixth seen the social security ministration found that he was eligible because he met all of the criteria for us aside including being a naturalized us citizen mr coaches started receiving benefits as of december twenty sixth teen ordinarily s s i benefits are only limited or paid from the time an application filed however the agency took notice of the fact that mr coaching has been pursuing his benefits in court since at least two thousand and eleven and therefore found him eligible russia will actively to his grant of citizenship in october of two thousand and fourteen so in addition to receiving a monthly benefit as of december twenty sixth he paid retroactively for those benefits that were awarded concurrent with his grant citizenship because the commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence and was made under the correct legal standards we respectfully submit that the district courts that he then subsequently get and we have your arguments in your brief thank you thank you both reserve decision the case of united states versus singer is taken out submission cases national labor relations board versus