MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
it's a couple of them that the violent crime victims assistance fund was problematic that there are some issues with the state police find that there are a number of them and why there are duplicate it's sort of a mystery and there's also a surcharge that's list in the record of whether there should be actually more than thirty seven i think the first place to look is the fact that mr learn more was arrested on november thirteenth two thousand and twelve just prior to sentencing there's an arrest warrant in the record common market page thirty seven sh a county jail shows that you may have been in custody a couple other times and whether those arrests were related to this case whether they were on another matter is it clear from the records or i think the circuit court certainly shouldn't have sort of the bond it's just a matter of send you back to determine what what happened whether counsel and maybe maybe very well be a couple didn't know about in which case there wouldn't be an ineffective assistance as you see that's interesting question is this if you raise it here at this court to disinfect it because it's not a hundred percent clear it should be clear we should know how many days a defense spending custody and he's entitled under the statute to receive credit toward the sentence on those so there's a possibility that he's not getting enough credit yeah and the it shows that the department of corrections gave him a custody date of october seventh two thousand and twelve which is over a month prior to his sentencing date in this he's also october seventh of two thousand and twelve the department of corrections serves that he was in custody for cause number two thousand and twelve eleven ninety seven so he received from the department of corrections words to be case report it is not authenticated by anyone it's not served by going in when i see in the upper right hand corner of reports to be from the fulton county sheriff's department i
alien relative through his us citizen spouse so he was able to be admitted at that time and if only it were in the fact in the parties all realize that he would have been able to emigrate that would have been an issue that would have come up in those proceedings inclined we would both agree to do mediation regarding this matter to see if we can resolve this issue because if it is if this is true then there is no real reason to go forward on this silent claim because the response of the church will ok all right so counsel did discuss with immigration judge that there was an application pending that what exactly was filed it was never discussed so but there was something pending so he never did this very he didn't he didn't make a formal request in the hearing he had no time did he have in his hand at the time of his attempted entry of valid or invalid visa or some other type of entry document now
himself that is the reason they went after his brother is he was a college kid right and apparently a lot of them both and see is that among the college gets there and the river was a farm kid he didn't go to college and that well gene being asked by the immigration judge well this was his opinion well that's why they didn't come after me i mean the fact is the reason they didn't they didn't the fact is they did come after another interesting one to three occasions right during the percent chance that they would certainly persecute him just like his brother and even if it doesn't have to go up to ten percent because of the general conditions that occurred at that successfully internally really look at it with no problems from the police he had whether he had a subjective fear of police in new delhi or not it clearly was not objectively reasonable and that absolutely disposes of the case and then the second that the police were still looking for him when he moved the police and put up or looking for him when i was a single state in a very large and populous populous country there is no evidence whatsoever that any police in new delhi were looking for him or th had in punjab contacted the police in new delhi or that there was any kind of conversation whatsoever between that's another point that even if there had been some sort of evidence of contact between the two police forces or an inference of conflict contact there simply isn't evidence t compels the conclusion hosing the one of the board that he failed to prove his case that internal relocation wasn't possible i would like to know relocation usually what we do is we remain asked so that the board can decide that if we stay there with all these the board's decision on whether there was well founded fear or saying in this case we don't have to do that i'm not sure if that was just quite an answer question but that's my question the two are the same question if they've answered the same question in that answer internal relocation was clearly tell from the record how much older so in addition to college and other factors the occupation and so on you also have an age distinction you also have the fact that he had a family and the distinctions between the two of them appear to be dramatic the most the one that strikes me the most is that rather was actually held somewhere by bad guys that the police were looking for so when the police grabbed the brother they mirror may not have been thinking that the brother's a bad guy
have solved that issue with respect to the combination of the prior article alleges at when you say for you believe that you needed the amendment for arguments is there anything stopping you from filing a certificate of correction zuckerberg claims are currently alive well because they've been held up at all i'm not sure that would that form of analysis for a lot of different little groups of claims deep and claims some of the times were for claims that you did not separately argue although in front of  there be an argument that for this little group of dependent there's almost like a waiver issue for you for not having separately argued them below before the board even if the board said something  and i still do not believe that that regulation allows that or to make shortcuts and the board in this case did not go back the board didn't do that here instead the board said we're going to go ahead and do a separate patentability finding out if you had a client so in that circumstance to the extent that there was a waive really i don't do a sufficient job of that then isn't there a problem just like there would be in any other situation where the board makes a rejection on some claims and then example i think a lot of the i spent a lot of time actually trying to synthesize between the two appeals what issues actually  arguments in there i don't believe that's independence but i believe it's true and it and i also know that the order at the beginning of the oral argument
education in training the government reply the government stated that means extraordinary eyesight alone is not the special skill but an element of a special skill and they combined that extraordinary eyesight along with his training and practice in cheating at cards and then they found the package then they found they got a special skill no where in the guidelines suggests that they could package lines long the district court and no ten lines basically said that because they did it so well it must have been sophisticated but there was no factual finding as far as what the judge special they must have had some training the other technique that they used was printing cards scrimping cards is nothing more than picking a card in moving it so that again they know sort of what card is different from the rest of the government also claims that they special skills now the code has examples doctors lawyers accountants demolition experts now i understand that this list is not exhaustive and obviously other trades come in  but can we really quick cheating and gambling into this list when you're just guarding a card i don't think so i don't think crimping a card even corresponds to the training that a lawyer goes through or a doctor goes through to get there doctor the judge basically just lowered the bar and said well i think there's some training here secondly the judge stated that in order to maintain consistency i will i will give mr l rulings in the green case in the main a case in the leak case in the harvard case that people with considerably greater sophistication and training and skill as as i had least currently evaluated were not entitled who did not have been subject clear that the defendant and the court were aware from the plea memorandum that this was an issue that would have been argued and that the defendant the court found below that you said it was not prejudiced by the nine filing of that motion because he was given notice was going to be coming for learn but he also got caught at it too still it wasn't full proof and the way that they cheated the casino again was not hundred percent foolproof it really gave them much they often lost to i mean increase their odds a little bit you know they won big you know i would just say that if you just as an analogy if a man had it had small hands and he went to hotwire car you know any any knowledge of how to hotwire a car you know does he get it increased on special skill because of his hands you know i it would be the same thing even if he does have good eyesight but i mean any of us can go out we can go buy glasses and we can get to that twenty twenty vision even if he does have twenty twenty vision so it's not a skill that's not possessed by the general public
instrument these are these are well recognized legal theories that desperate people who don't know any better raise we have they have talked about the common people the people who are who allege defendant really understood the nature of the proceedings against him or could participate in his defense so i don't think we need to say that the minute the issue comes up the court must suspend proceedings and have a competency hearing he has the long term duration which took place over a two year period and the court had a much more substantially greater portion of the record before then this court does which is replete with these references  lawyers don't even catch on but the defendant he caught on to this specific provision and that's important to note in comparing the frivolous but motivated filings which occurred since this court has no jurisdiction over me you have to let expressing no opinion one way or another puts it back in the lap of the court yeah i think i think you're reading that correctly i think what he's saying is i have no reason to believe helpful saying i have no reason to believe that he is not competent at this point other
arguing as though we get to decide that and what i'm wondering is whether we don't all we get to decide is whether the state court have was one supportable on its conclusion that we had and that we overturned it despite twenty eight u s c twenty two fifty four and one particularly concerns me is excerpts one fifteen one fifty one reasonable inference which is the federal standard it looks like whether they're supposed to or not they followed the make circuit w court in that regard i can understand your confusion because it looks like the state court didn't follow state law they followed federal law figure out what gave rise to an indication that it was racially based and here's my problem the man that was bumped his brother and his brother in law were robbers at that's close relationships most people know their brothers and brothers in law number one his nephew was convicted of something i don't even know my nephew so i wouldn't even recognize them and another one also had some sh there anything else except that he was the only black i mean he's also the only brother and brother in law robert in a robbery trial that's correct in that other factor was that the prosecutor a wheeler and use that standard that was the year two thousand because prior to that there had been some confusion in two thousand the california supreme court in california office corrected it the correct way to match with that  in two thousand and three people v johnson the california supreme court corrected it by saying in fact that the exact same standard as had been the same standard and to the extent thirty three cases say otherwise they're wrong so there was a period between two played for him supporter for him also i think some of the language was troubling in the sense that the trial court said well i realize it looks bad something to do you think because after all you let the man sit around i don't it's thank you castle for your candor appreciate it walker versus your bow is submitted
but the people crashed into pla and this is what they cla other provides allied defense collapsed the british army was driven into the  and now the nazis and in paris this had been the dream of the kaiser in the last war hitler ach kepler was happy now only a few minutes right from the english calls set out to bomb the british people into submission  earlier breed of the german people that national socialism and communism could live side by side now he told them he didn't mean what he said before but he did mean what he said before that military spokesman in berlin said the red army is would be encircled and destroyed within six weeks its remnants would retreat back of the europe the japanese could deal with them at the proper time joseph stalin rallied the russian people  chain six thousand miles across the pacific that stretch to move like the other democracies we were not prepared for total wrong fortunately under lend lease act of march nine hundred forty one we had set out to become the
the employee had not shown a discriminatory enchant by the employer since the employer had offered cost savings as the reason for the terminations the district court applied t for that decision however their decision was based on mr m was age had he been under the age of seventy he would remain employed there so the age was the but for a cost the decision  intent can be implied based on basically discriminatory policy in other words where and in many cases the discrimination is a question of whether or not it's  thank you thank you and so they are the consequence of obtaining insurance without knowledge in advance that it would be terminated is the issue and that's why we're into the in the three part test i think the  and you want you one of the cornerstone of making more money so poor guys that is not the intent that the record what happened may be the consequence that's not the intent can't provide the facts that
that water coming directly from a spring does not present winter and here the eggs will be saying when the eggs are finally laid and cared for her salmon swim a little distance from the nest and pan the water with their tails he had bought a land of course he had but it was really the silver million that made alaska so valuable to america and the world each year from february to may hundreds of men leave pacific coast alaska become famine conscious and rightfully for it means work for over twenty one thousand man station and with his catch no human hands touch the fish a mechanical elevator moves them rapidly into the and move from place to place following the stamped on the cover of each can these levelers have no trouble in putting the right play both on the right
all if something just doesn't matter th rather than the ten saying that when a district judge declares that a particular contested issue about the guidelines calculation doesn't matter then it drops out yes so i am wondering whether that argument is really consistent with the defendant's failure to disclose what happened to the proceeds and or failure to be forthright about whatever it was she was holding to threaten us i'm having trouble with the proposition that a judge can consider a defendant silence lunch she has started to talk it's been settled for at least one hundred and fifty years in the supreme court that a defendant starts to talk and then clam shop can't protest when the judge draws an adverse inference and that seems to be what happened here i no error because the funding had no influence on the sentence and it seems to me important to recognize the difference between a harmless error and no  correct your honor that the that is what the court that it and and because the court said that the guideline range would not matter any error in the assessing the multiple facts that support of the guidelines and meant could not have made a difference and we laid out the multiple facts that supported the guidelines of management in this case and the statements about the gun being a lender for five hundred dollars which is one stand based on that reasoning and declined to reconsider class and for the same reason because the guidelines are presumptively reasonable if declining to go below it cannot be considered a penalty for the defendant reasonable the defense sends would have been within guidelines and under even what the what a talent is urging was the correct guidelines range but i think the more important point is that the district court reasoning that it set out what is that the defendant's failure to provide the truth about where what she did with the gun was evidence that she was not the grabbing reactions and not showing refused to tell the f b i where the gun is after initially lying about it let me leave the family follow up if i could on your sister burke's question to defense counsel suppose the defendant had not started she wasn't going to get acceptance of responsibility and the guidelines she went to trial weren't correct yes so the court comment i think had to do in part with the fact that she she lied and never told the truth that it wasn't dependent on that it was the fact that she had failure failed to show remorse and acceptance responsibility which are well recognized reasons  release for instance in drug cases involving mandatory minimums where they do not tell the government what they know about the offense but that is not considered accounting for science silence and then a pal there is a failure to
smith please the court i would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal your honour's i realize that i have a tough row to hoe in this case i'm well aware that in taylor against lewis in my submission drug crimes cannot be treated as if they were the same some drug crimes may warrant draconian sentences but some don't and the crime at issue in this case is one of the latter i like for example the crime in homiletic where the defendant was convicted of possessing one and a half pounds of cocaine often treated only as in this demeanor and probably would have been so treated but for one time i was a criminal history which included two strikes one reason why i possessing seven hundredth of a gram of methamphetamine but rather on his criminal history it's clear that the primary focus must be on the current offense and that criminal history while relevant is on the ground that we're dealing here with a wobbler rather than a crime which is always a felony and secondly and perhaps more importantly the criminal histories in the two cases are different in taylor the defendant have been convicted of a homicide a voluntary manslaughter for stabbing the victim to death and had also been convicted i just want to find make sure i get this knife which occurred during a drunken fight in which you cut the victim's arm and i would submit to you that that is not comparable to a voluntary manslaughter stabbing death combined with a robbery at gunpoint so on that basis i submit the two cases taylor in montana can be distinguished on their fact that as well as the distinction between the always felony crime  drug entirely and may have driven again but for his arrest that was not proved that was not even alleged in the in the information on which he was tried hard and i notice is eighteen months and by dint of his two strikes it becomes inflated to a sentence which is sixteen times at a minimum sixteen times greater and so i on more than just one occasion in addition to inflicting serious bodily injury on the victim of the assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing him which is what taylor did of course taylor's victim did not survive the victim did survive but suggested was in possession of a knife at the time the robbery was committed but there was no evidence whether he pulled a knife out of his pocket and used it in any way in order to perpetrate the  a violation of clearly established united states supreme court law that's as far as you have to go i know that in many of these cases the decisions are uncomfortable to many people but the voters have made their choice and the state is dealing with it now it may be we evaluate this decision in the future but for this court the function is fairly limited and i think that the taylor case really sets the course of a decision in this case important to note that while montana has a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon that conviction occurred ten years earlier on the crime even earlier than that ten years before the current was committed unlike mewing about whom the supreme court said this is a man with a record of increasing violence the opposite is true in montana's case he has no conviction
everything else the government represented to the coroner and the motion to suppress proceed on the patient yet everything everything or anything else in the government's possession i'm sure was their request for these things interior was a request for the grand jury transcript that the government didn't provide
me that the level of the use which he received and i'm not going to she just it was an unpleasant seems to me to be a lot less than what we have found not to  thank you thank you
dollars and the examiner said that if the system was changed such that there is active reservation going on not simply that the system was reserved like you would reserve a table for dinner but that there was the computer was changed so that the computer through the processor with software actively protects that now so it's an action that's going on that they would deem that a eligible subject matter because it would improve the function of the country or the of proven is that it guarantees a space for the service that's been provided in this case the i deliver service the arguments and so forth i made previously i would incorporate here prosecution history which there the examiner found that the notion of reserving storage space for advertising data was known to the priority that was the market reference that the examiner was using during prosecution so whatever the examiner thought when allowing the claims over over want to one that was just bare there's nothing in the claims that justifies a conclusion that these claims are not in ultimate under one and again we have a cross appeal in this case if there's use in fact it's most likely that marsh was still confidential inside the patent office until it issued one of the rules about time it yourself tells us that novelty is not an issue in determining  controlling access we're providing the network direct access to the storage location that didn't occur and marsh so we are different in march so i that's what i want to address is that simply saying that one reference was some similar doesn't mean then that nobody can use that to improve a different system so
of self defense theory and not actually because the witnesses are the witnesses are pretty inconsistent you can see it but they also say that the shooting occurred away from the man still there wouldn't be the reason for the her boyfriend the victim comes  goes to the vehicle to get us a gun he now says he's going to go to vehicle to get his gun and that's when he has a run in with his wife and her boyfriend in the and there's a dispute about precisely what happens but there is no dispute about the fact that yes up with the serious head head on the back and shirt now one things i want to clarify about the facts is that the testing of the victim's t shirt there was a cut and several samples that were taken from the teacher most of them were to the victim's blood not the defendants there were