MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
judge noonan pointed out that he doesn't find her seriously depressed but overall his concluding statement that for all of the reasons laid out in his fairly extensive description i would be surprised that she would return to work or cooperate with any rehabilitation service and that's the most logical explanation of checking  saying overall if you look at some level depression her personality traits her physical problems combined are going to keep her from working but they said to them i'm sorry what was the combined do what she's clearly not really that good at presenting herself or representing herself in these respects so i think at the very least the judge had a duty to considered by dr johnson is entirely consistent with dr johnson's narrative he says that she's not unable to work but that she is not likely to cooperate with such an effort or that she is not willing to work it was interpreted that way by the is that i think he overreached ruwi as i mean he accuses them of having some in his his analysis which says she has a severe depression and he selectively reads from johnston who  johnston as i'm so if you know one could come away with the conclusion that a council i mentioned a combination of these factors including some level of depression both psychologists agree she can't work of decided to read johnson very narrow expansively in favor or against disability and diminish the evidence on the selected basis on the other side so why should we sit but also they were i believe adequately was i'll buy a range for second concentrated examination furthermore how are they inconsistent on the bottom line i mean first of all the consultation examination doesn't afford a basis for  be willing to work exactly he says he fine but that's the only difference they all they all agree she's not going to go back to work he finds that she won't be she's not likely to be successful because she's not motivated to work but instead motivated just so that this emotional i'd be surprised if she returned to work life or cooperate with any rehabilitation services you know that's just it's not a molester it's sort of a difference it seems to be presenting sort of a different case yeah i don't believe he's talking she doesn't at least for any psychiatric impairment do not result in any limitations on going back to work it's more a result of her personality and a confluence of events and while i agree that he did fill out the form saying that she would not succeed in maintaining a work schedule equivocal about that at least in reading i believe my reading your honor is simply that dr johnson was quite clear in saying that the problem here is one of life's circumstance and motivation is not as a result of depression but i believe the question for this court is whether the l j could reasonably have read it that way and if so and in the old days job as the reconciler of evidence if you will  i believe the opinion the reading should be held on that basis however if i may have dressed the treating records i'll concede the else they could have gotten them however the l j isn't the only
government presented detailed credible and cogent reasons for the fact that she should be granted asylum and that is in the record the fact that she was pentecostal the fact that she had been attacked while a misstated the record he was not able to rebuff that and indeed the record is is really surprising because he's bringing forth matters such as the fact that she was personally groomed well groomed in the united states the activity despite the fact the state requirement points out that it is not simply relieves minorities but in particular those who have vandalized ok instead he basically assumes that there might be changed conditions and she was not bothered at that point in time she wasn't eventual izing and in fact it's completely irrelevant ok the r j on his own without anything in the record divined that as a result of the fa questions that did not come up before the odds are i conducted their own cross examination and invented falls discrepancies i can go into detail on each of these points if you wish but the bottom line is  the government cannot answer any of these charges you may reserve your remaining time if you wish to know so thank you very much we'll hear from the government rape was involved her her religious status weren't the comments that were made at that point before and after related to the fact that account of her pentecostal religion immigration judge it's clear from the record that pentecostals are mocked in discriminated against and i think the question might be slightly different counsel you don't mind hearing from that is if we assume credibility here if we assume that she was raped  religious alerts were made during the course of the interrogation and the rape isn't enough under our case law to establish past persecution yet assuming credible matter in terms of past persecution in other words if the police reasonably believed she was pentecostal does it matter what her personal beliefs are no your honor it does not in other words one can be a  without knowing chapter and verse once and berkeley i remember running into an evangelist most proud plaza who was preaching what he thought was the good samaritan the story but in fact it was the prodigal son everyone laughed but
honor that to be a persecutor you have to have conduct that you have to have some intent and followed by some action that results in the torture maiming or killing newspapers that people were being tailed by the n b a that's all he knew and he didn't know that by woodward in twenty names those people would be killed that's a difference your honor and that's really all you did if you reported twenty names that he did not assist in the persecution of others so before this court can only must show that the record compels the conclusion that he did not assist in the persecution of others other words you must point to compelling evidence that demonstrates that he did not help persecute anyone and the problem with his case it is as the immigration judge found a page fifty nine of the record and as the record demonstrates he has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that he did not assist in the persecution of others rather his argument is for example page eighteen of his brief that there is no evidence that anyone died as a result of his actions well first off that's incorrect but secondly that doesn't really go to meeting his burden of coming forward with affirmative demonstrate that he was a persecutor but once he has conceded that he bears the burden must demonstrate that he did not assist in persecuting others that fact is irrelevant because that goes only to the government's initial burden of production which he has conceded the government has met and in fact the government down to if it works efficient to say there's no evidence for him to be his verdant and the government could meet its burden in other context of showing that there was evidence of change country conditions simply by saying that there was no evidence the country conditions had not changed paper at least three years well that's what the n p a did they were they terrorized and they they terrorize people they kill people they kidnap people that's like saying you're a member the boy scouts you don't you don't know they like to go camping that's what the n p a did he demonstrates that really  sort of his position by by attacking the immigration judge is finding that he should have known he was delivering marijuana because of the armed guards around the truck that he was driving he says well i should have been suspicious of  record he knew where the marijuana was being grown and he took the police there his claim his when we get to the merits his claim really comes down to the fact that it's when it's convenient for him to be ignorant he's ignorant and when it's convenient for him to know where the who ever point persecution of the n p a could ever and could ever been granted asylum so because he's not credible because you system the persecution of others because he has not met his burden it is clear that the record fully supports the immigration rule forty one eighty two and the federal arbitration act and whether or not the rule forty one eighty two may trump the federal arbitration exception for with the kitchen pending to compel arbitration
this conduct in this context i thought that it would if we agree with this record that you see these attempts to suppress discovery evidence is to blame for what's now an states where we have customers in the united states was looking our home office was going just to clarify i mean these meetings that they were adding with corporate executives of two different companies what from intel on emerson to instruct their supply chain people to use your client's infringing resin and so therefore the site is of good to seventy one b viability of you point to something to as evidence that there was a pattern of product getting in arizona now there's that that particular that's ridiculous or this one sets of pages in the record you've marked confidential and so i what i'm trying to figure out now is to what extent can we actually  agilent keep going business as usual right right and then internally there was one e mail from one of your clients employees to another employee saying just go ahead and tell agilent to keep going business as usual so from those statements business as usual i think it's fair to support this court's finding that fry's indicating that based on the litigation misconduct with which we started it was inclined to find circumstantial evidence you could have gotten an affidavit from those
joseph hastings your honor he lives out on the west side burglary he was arrested last night after breaking into the magazine warehouse street another boy got away they are taking cigarettes another ver before you went out to where i judge bob and i didn't mean any harm we had a couple of beers at the tavern and ran out of cigarettes bob said he knew where to get some so just left with it down to the maggots and warehouse and helped ourselves to it just as we were coming out of the place they caught bob i mean my pal he got away but they caught me well i know you're upset but the object of the deal of course is to give help in cases like this about this kind of he's a good boy how do you suppose he's been playing hooky from school i haven't said those i had agreed with that every child should be taught the golden rule and i might add the ten commandments and how they apply in our modern life we thought we were doing everything we could to make them happy they have their friends in a couple times a year we try to make them all home we serve dinner so much better than going to the tavern for instance i recall a high school tournament visiting just three hundred dollars damaged furniture they forgot good manners they didn't know of the golden rule lack of respect for the rights of really underneath the bad you often get very good he has courage imagination sensitivity you young people everywhere are with ideas in many places they organize to express ideas to better their own communities their own life youth is active eager to learn eager to accomplish to do things for itself there are ways they maybe help there are many existing agencies that can assist you in its search for hope some hardy activities in the church with its teachings and its leadership with its activities its opportunity you some find is those things it expects and wants of the work you know that day and go over says that there would be practically no crime among you if young people attended sunday school regularly during their formative years and important the children should have in the home the right environment and example to learn god manners and development habits it's a parent's job to ensure that all knowledge responsibility and activities that will make buying characters a home is the center of the child's life and fairness to them it should be marley and socially ray i don't see it's up to all of us you'll learn to me two adults outlook you can get joined by the a better opportunity in life i'm going to give you a chance to make goals life a little better i'm going to return him to york us today on probation but first person and that's what goes wrong with you when you take a drink your brain goes wrong your thinking goes wrong and you go if they take only one drink
why is that sufficient here he has a gun in his waistband it is completely visible to everybody they're used threatened according to the testimony of one of the tellers he's threatened to kill them he has he has somebody else in the bank holding everybody else while he's moving the tellers from one place to another to get money why isn't that sufficient to satisfy you assuming that you're correct about that staying focused at gunpoint just one fourth of the at gun point why isn't that sufficient to satisfy the at gunpoint arguing that seems to me at a different point which would be a media city that is i didn't have an immediate threat of a gun because he didn't have his finger on the trigger it was stuck in his waistband i suppose and he had some  is the fact that it's looked at before suggested so i would say that yes immediately immediacy is a component of it but but even even more than that i think that there's a  think i again i would refer back to the guideline because the guideline really does require our or at least discussed the physical nature of it i think that's why i'm not sure i want to be locked into the idea of immediacy because i think what what the concern is the when in the vault he then had one tailor put money into the bag while the other two were pushed to the ground and at that point he got one bag was completely full of money he then ordered the third teller to get around  they believe that it was locked the door was shut and they were told that they would be killed if they left and so in fact their main on the ground i believe until the defendant left the bank and it was only after that that they exited the vault i think case where they're moved from the teller into the vault and while the record isn't clear as to how long that took or what the distance was it was moving them into a separate isolated room how many people were in the back of the time you know i don't believe the record is clear on
a particular narrow mind of diabetes it's about long term uncontrolled type one brittle diabetes and you would not know that from reading the a l j opinion and so i'm going to focus on two primary things today first the ways in which that detailed type of diabetes w to repeat what i said you are simply restating your client's position you need to make a legal argument about why this decision is not supported by substantial evidence right i looked in your brief for such an argument and did not find it ok nor did i find it in well this is your opportunity to make that argument ok camp bell vs astrud seven circuit two thousand and ten that i've already got illustrate that that is going on here which is problematic and i'm going to move to my my second point which is that i'll probably come back to my purse one later on second point goes to credibility and in terms of credibility the not does not overemphasize daily activities and comes out specifically and it seems to be a common feature in the o j opinions that the over these activities are over emphasized either because someone's helping or because they're not performed at a level comparable to a work environment or they're not performed at the pace of a work environment which is the same in layman's terms it's unfair to use those things against them as they are work and so he or she is working a part time job at dollar general twenty hours or a little over twenty hours a week it looks like one week where she works thirty nine in one week after that actually works thirty four next but she's not working fourth time on an ongoing basis or anything like doesn't into account the obvious economic realities that you're going to drive a grandson around if you're helping your son now if you need to even though she's had at least one episode where she had stopped the car parent late and no major accident simply not present and the l j was not obliged to address them furthermore miss we were first to the fact that her diabetes is long term and uncontrolled for more than thirty years however with the record reflect that she worked with this condition are substantial  a part time job sometimes working more than thirty hours per week as a cashier and to drive her grandson around and care for her grandson three days a week this is not the crux of the a l g a daily ration the l in combination and gave thorough examination to all of them yet his finding was complete the jobs are past relevant work i don't clerk and retail stock are lined up with her own testimony that she was able to complete their work twenty hours a week
the andes mountains only a few miles away santiago capital of delhi has a spectacular setting the spanish conquistador and founded the city over four hundred years ago many magnificent old iago's population approaches the million mark or its largest in south america and the principal city on the west coast santiago is a real metropolis buying and selling goods from all over the world perhaps what most impresses the newcomers is the modern architect most advanced countries in latin america large cities everywhere santiago had and still had probably one third of the nation used to live in fact adobe here with living conditions almost as bad as some in washington or charleston alleyways crowded into a single room with people to poor to buy screens or sufficient food spread rapidly santiago tuberculosis alone claimed thousands of victims  plenty for the treatment of tuberculosis had been set up by the ministry of public health at the government clinic organized by various social security agencies of well trained doctors and nurses in time provide an old age pension manuel blanco as a long chris to the flood neighborhood where he and his family are forced to live because of the serious housing shortage in santiago convent tries to make the best of their bad condition he often says others are worse off than we are perhaps we should be glad to have a roof overhe happy no place to try to raise a family he tells his wife quarters are not automatically approved first the social worker from the bureau in the best against the broncos and their present house only those living in substandard dwellings are eligible for admission in the family income must be high enough to make the small monthly payments required to buy the new home year after proving desirable tenants the family becomes owner of the new apartment subject to a twenty year m is one of the happiest days of the broncos life when they learn that they have been accepted as tenants in a government unit block or spend a day looking over the housing unit under construction they discuss the relative merit the last five years till you're spent one hundred and fifty million pesos the bill no housing unit for more than eight thousand families a long time in the lab since the billion nutrition experts would like their countryman to eat twice as much meat and four times as much milk products as they do now with their present adequate supply of bread potatoes vegetables fruits and sugar would give them a more satisfactory d and in their opinion or chileans are firm believers in free speech and the right of every man even the most radical to be h after the game the blog or is it a picnic dinner and receive a family meeting together we can be sure that thanks to their new home their future life can be one of health and happiness the blanco family offers a good example they labored are slowly but surely receiving better housing to lead housing program is getting started all over the country and dozens of other cities besides santiago large housing projects and a good housing to lay believe is a permanent social investment it pays dividends in healthier and happier people
nine today we're here on a petition and the issue there's one issue before this court and that's whether the united states sensing guideline to west one point one should have been analyzed and applied to his case at either send scene or on direct appeal and i will move to this court that his trial attorney and his direct appeal attorney were the same attorney and who passed away and i took over the case at the point where the twenty to fifty five was filed back in november of two thousand  they were going to do except for the fact that herbie got knocked off by one of the participants before they went ahead with the plan i think that's that's the government's argued that but for her  i don't think the conspiracy was completely formed i think there's some testimony at trial that they were going to go back to the auto parts store they were going to remove the handguns from mr desk to make it a little bit safer when they approached him and told me it was no longer going to be a partner in in any auto business  law enforcement intercession and i think that should have been my next think the district judge was in error and i think mr an heiress counsel that time his standard of conduct and his professional responsibility in our case was below the reasonable issue a different way or the standard of professional competence are you talking about the counsel for mr senor on his couch i don't i'm not talking about the counsel talking about the judges well i think the judges in that case and i'm applies therefore to us one point one should be considered i think it's easy to look at programs it's can it's a confusing case is a confusing issue and i think the court made a mistake i think that panel definitely made a mistake and i think this panel should step up to the plate correct this and allow our one guideline because the offense conviction itself expressly criminalizes the attempt and or the conspiracy there was there were also arguments in those cases those three previous cases th what's included in the application one of two ways one point one is controlled by what the statute of conviction and therefore when counsel for mr quinn r o below was faced with the decisions and then boom and can take for instance murder was an intervening actual ever there's also some indication that it was a way to create an alibi and deniability that they knew that the murder was going to take place but with the issue that's before the court