MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
fear of future persecution based on the threats that specifically targeted him as the chief of his local civil trial and that those threats alone form the objective basis of the country conditions reports do not necessarily munch on the existence of guerrillas that doesn't preclude that there still might be guerrilla activity in the local percentage this is true but do i know so the basis for your fear of future persecution is that things are not all that much better and that's for some problem well there is no indication that he would necessarily joining with the evidence and the record shows that he has fathered a child here in the united states i believe in two thousand and one and good morning thank you and may it please the court catherine on behalf of the united states i'd like to just start out by correcting what i just heard which was that there were threats i believe there was only one threat here that could even be called that it was also not a death threat rather it was leaving behind a pamphlet saying that so although the government would concede that's a threat it's not a specific death threat targeting him and i think that's the difference the only issue here is whether petitioners fear of returning to  is objectively reasonable the i j a found it wasn't and i think that conclusion is eminently correct certainly nothing in this record compels reversal because here the petitioner didn't show any direct or specific evidence he's talking about civil patrol service over ten years ago he himself admitted on cross examination that the guerrillas are in a quote sleeping the mode also acknowledge they were no longer active those citations are at the record at page ninety conceded that the peace accords were signed although he takes a different view of whether that improve the situation but i think the i j was right when he said that general fear of criminal violence which is gripping wadham allah is not sufficient establish a well founded fear of these courts cases such as arriaga and devalue i also hold that a generalized fear of wanting to return but not wanting to return somewhere is simply not sufficient i think this case is exactly like this court's decision and strada which is cited in both briefs there there was no past persecution established and the petitioner like the petitioner here claimed he feared returning to guatemala on the basis of higher military service and this court held that he simply had not offered any direct specific evidence that coupled with state department reports talking about change country conditions was sufficient to deny the petition our relief so unless the court has any further questions for all the reasons i stated in
created separate i really didn't create separate because that started many many years ago i cannot say claims that we made a classic saxophone and i think that's probably the most important contribution that we have made and crime is made it
it his signature song and it became a regular feature on his radio program but then mr haglund mr ivor haglund decided to open a seafood restaurant in seattle and he took the last line of the song to name his restaurant he called it ivers acres of clams and it's still there a bit of a seattle landmark right near the downtown ferry terminal now this song doesn't have a recurring refrain or chorus but if you listen closely  that the last line of each a verse is repeated and as you begin to recognize the pattern of that repetition hope you'll join me on those repeated lines five turn around  over with him her thick as hair on the back of a dog i took up a claim in the forest and set myself down to hard pole for six years i chopped and i labored but i never got down to the soil i never got down to the soil ever got down to this and never got down to the soil for  never got down to the soil i tried to get out of the country but poverty forced me to stay until i became an old settler now nothing can drive me away around it by
that the transcript of the personal security board hearing be made available to us at this point at which it was that the administrative judge's stage we made the request there was no objection from the government side in also told me this some determination was made at that hearing that rather than remove mr dyson the intent was to in fact reinstate him we were not able to staged and even at the point at which the petition for review was filed with the board and we think in that you received a response never did and i referred the court to  the request was made in the petition for review it's a tough period sigs and there was a note for footnote four where i tried to explain the efforts we made to concede requests we made reference to it in the petition in the response to the initial decision to the board and there never addressed and we think that is relevant to the whole chief for personal security i had the inherent authority to restore that employee's security clearance or to direct his placement on paid administrative leave case i considered his june fourth two thousand and twelve written response to the north as a proposed indefinite suspension in my capacity as the deciding official however i found that the proposed frampton versus the department of interior full of it ensuring hearings and m s p v board cases are only required when there's a dispute the facts which must be resolved before a decision can be reached and that is not the case here the issues that that mr dyson and brings on appeal whether his he had received a copy of this p s a the transcripts for what she had an attorney present which she was present deciding official to raises issues which he did the only issue before the m s p is whether he had a clearance which was revoked whether his clarence was a requirement for his job and whether he received his procedural protections set forth and section seventy five thirteen and if affable if the agency followed its own policies or regulations when removing him he does not just cute that he did not receive any of his protections under seventy five thirteen
penalty no your honor i go i believe it's not that's not exactly the case what i'm saying is if you take testimony out of context and argue that it constitutes an admission of liability but you fail to provide the questions and answers immediately preceded the part that you side with mark the part of that immediately preceded it really would reveal that the argument we're going to make is wrong i think that i in your brief in your brief in this appeal mainly attorneys you say that the reason the district court erred on an equitable conduct was that there was a failure to disclose and how that as we know from what we were discussing in the previous appeal the district court didn't say anything about that so the other words in order to agree with you on that point in as a  were on he turn to these number one the claim destruction issue what you're saying they went back and forth and number two the ethical conduct but there's been no equable kind of finding so testimony around talking about testimony given it one more the decision versus another we're talking about a series of questions asking about type one which then lead into series of other questions  plain language and reporting their questions and cite only that testimony to support the decision michelle has made admission when previously immediately preceding questions and she would indicate that it's
hundreds of teens in holland are looking for work experience career skills and a chance to serve their community college youth connections was created to do just that and help at risk youth and i think it's a great second chance opportunity for kids to develop nearly eighty working at twenty job sites as the program continues to expand more work sites are needed to accommodate the additional students is a nice way to meet new people in the community get involved in community and meet new kids thanks to these partners and many private donors all unused connections has completed its second successful year next year we want to triple the number of students participating to two hundred fifty students every business has a project of their staff simply doesn't have time to do all in youth connections is the perfect solution for the project by hiring holland youth connections not only will you have a completed project you won't have to pull your regular employees are more prinz owner of spectrum fabrication and one team for several weeks to clear brush on his property and to paint equipment in this facility that's important to teach kids that the x and business analyst and life and hopefully build a walk alongside these the kind and so on the ropes of what it's like to start really from the bottom or colony of connections is a one stop shop for your project each group of five students comes with a supervisor to oversee the success of the project and the students the team is transported to your job site and ready to work with your supplies by teaching our youth to be productive community members who feel valued we create a safer environment for all who live in the greater holiday area in two thousand and thirteen the does is it says to a kid you can make a contribution and be a part of our society in a good way to speeching them the work ethic that it takes to go to the next into the job market and be there and  need your support to expand holon youth connections together we can make a better tomorrow today
war on any front we can be attacked in spite of our excellent tax may be made in many ways with bombs or with biological weapons this might be one form of biological warfare buzz but you may have h my headache you are wrong you had better find out the facts about biological warfare or b w it can be aimed at you in your home or at work at your food drive your livestock biological weapons can be divided into three groups germs toxins and plant growth regulat we have proven our health and medical systems check the spread of infectious diseases our livestock and crops are guarded by a nationwide network of federal state and local agencies and expert agents could contaminate the city water supply how can we protect ourselves from b w attacks keep yourself and your family clean don't help germs by making things easy for the germs have trouble living in clean place and role in a red cross home nursing course then if sickness does come to you you'll know what to do always report sickness promptly and dr mar probably some of the people in your neighborhood would become sick reports of a disease would start pouring in to help and medical authorities the number and location of cases would be plotted on a map of the area scientists would go to work immediately to identify the cause of the disease meanwhile the outbreak would take on a definite refrigerators are probably not contaminated soil or cooked all exposed food before water used for drinking or washing after an attack must be boiled washed all contaminated garments thoroughly to remove germs or toxins if your doctor recommends sending a member of your family to the hospital cooperate logo help and medical authorities would distribute instructions so that the outbreak of the disease can be controlled for instructions first if you are called upon for a blood sample god has about samples would be extremely important recovery of those already sick would be speeded up with the use of modern drugs masson occupations might be necessary to keep the disease from spreading this would require the cooperation of everyone our health and medical systems are the brown basins of our defense against biological warfare our food supply is guarded by a nationwide network of bedroll state and local agencies and experts if we are attacked with biological warfare l then medical authorities will tell you what to do so that the disease could be brought under control cooperate with the authorities above all don't
o me i'm the director of the business drum line the piston drum line up and when i heard they were going to be in town and my lack of knowledge what is the position from line ball back in two thousand and five two thousand and six the person's really going for another type of performance team  single game so that's forty five here every home game every single home game you do part of the performance and we do something special something unique every game something unique every good yes and you were the conductor the director that's correct and thinks of these creative things to do all we all brainstorm together then you're right a lot of our pieces so we all kind of come to go their ideas will get the kinds of together they get on paper and since we live in different places we'll send it out to each other will practice it get together i'm trying to be that's right aha that's a great thing what's the best part to you from being here of course playing with everybody is one thing the fans the fans are great you know they love what we're doing and we're jumping around and they get entertained by everything that we do and you know we feed off that energy sell the stuff really a big thing for me
but your argument about the violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the mandatory minimum you know we just ruled on that i think last week in u s versus assumes i do so i'm assuming you're doing making this don't really think realistically under the law we can grant your client relief on any of these are threats based on the status of the laws now not here at this level but we are prepared reserving for the supreme court ok shall continue the concerns that we have with regard to the eighth and then the violation are that they are disproportionately applied to the numbers do not lie that minorities do continue to receive the brunt end of that so that excessive sentences and you know there's just a big concern on twenty seven years being the least and that addresses all those things when my client has a very minimal criminal history the court can see that he has a low level felony for creating a driver's life and this is only criminal history and  a reasonable doubt on every issue that he's being sent want to address that issue a waiver which is something that the government is presenting their argument on the standard of review again we don't believe that  mandatory minimum sentence is mandatory it can be reduced only it can be reduced by the judge it can only be reduced by the prosecutor run high lighting different things that so that actually does doesn't have the same level of discretion and the government the government going by that has a high level of discretion only they can reduce it to the will thirty five or safety belt even if the court disagrees with this and they still have to go at that then and they have their hands tied so we do believe those are concerned that's to be taken up since substantial rights and substantial liberty interests are affected by
legislation says have pollution control is important in our state preamble about there for water rights access is important in our state child custody is important so if we just look for a disrupt the workplace is there any assertion on your part that do was a disruption of the workplace because of the testimony because of the nature of th that is contrary to what we've been doing all along and why would that be better than what we've got but whether or not the court was both got the bright highroad not the issue before the court the issue was whether or not the state of  clearly established you're asking us to basically create a circuit split with these other circuits and announce to the law that employers of the right to patrol what their employees say in
conviction relief as such the basis for his continued still exists and remains the same that is there still a pending collateral attack on his conviction the fact that is an appeal makes no difference for immigration purposes conviction was final before the post conviction proceeding began while it was pending and it still file as a result the request to relieve in this case that has remained and still effectuate change in the case  decide this or state this that this conclusion is correct an appeal keeps the controversy alive and protects an appeal that from our projects occasionally coming through now moving to the second issue non citizens in r proceedings have a right to present evidence under eight us c twelve twenty nine before this right was violated because the i g never considered the documents trial counsel attempted introduced in support of just his motion to continue and altho asked for a proffer instead trial counsel never got to make that proffer instead the immigration judge proceeded to question counsel and then made a decision before he was came back to the proper consideration of the  made his or her decision before considering the evidence presented now free man to be appropriate there also needs to be prejudice here we have prejudice because the evidence trial counsel attempted to present a could have persuaded the i j a that the discretion by the department of homeland security on discretion based on work with certain requirements there's a memorandum that they follow and there's also an application that one needs to fill out and submit the government the united states essentially a promise not to be deported and employment authorization and force me them to the last issue immigration judges denial josias motion again was an abuse of discretion for essentially the same reasons we've already discussed the ideas and i was out without a rational explanation because it was made without considering the evidence or w collateral attack under this president president this court is not good cause for it contains nevertheless immigration judges still have the discretion to consider granting a continuance this is also not harmless error with due consideration board's president denying that continu
yes but an eruption and that mountainous area would do very little damage on the contrary it will do a great deal of damage to present atmospheric conditions on to indicate that the eruption would cause torrential rains and the resulting flood should serious think that maybe addresses i gave a phony but i didn't get one break the airport manager bodies not just mcgregor and forgot to give them back al's cafe that might do it some good but at least made their bed there and if we're lucky they might be regular customers so let's go look to join us right another car out there as soon as possible
appeals who subsequently dismissed the action at the crux of this case is the statutory requirement as it relates to family as  there is reactionary demonstration of a reactionary tight element operating here for example immediately upon entering the country again as your o these two family members were very quickly subjected to the monstrous acts of violence and securely as well with regard to the incident involving her as she was again it was is love and support the conclusion that there was a nexus but they ruled against you the question is whether we can overturn that i guess is the record is what it is technically speaks to one or two family members in this case we have a succession individualized acts committed against not one not two but i believe six or seven independent members of the family and again that's where we rest upon the fourth circuit's reasoning in so far as analyzing these factors rather than having a requirement of exclusivity and fact that conclusion what you say that but i look at this record you have two family members left living in the country one lives behind the liquid fence barbwire and one is in when she was asked by her family was attacked many times perhaps out of jealousy i don't know really what ass was trying to break into houses and harm her family that's what we do not now and petition as counsel given legal status in the united states there are two family members let those family members live but the short message is that none of us would want to live under this is that is the stuff to show that this is a family that for
with her statement under her husband's statement in terms of the assault itself at the refugee center at the refugee center just said that the woman tried to assault or and their husband intervene and prevented her from being physically assault
we finally got it right they called me down as a general hospital to see if i could identify a prisoner and he turned out to be one of those two who have been making all the trouble for us how did they catch him or he had another man staged a payroll robbery the police went after them in a car crash the other man was killed but our power was only banged up a little what did you find out about it his name's graber an ex con take out on parole from a bank robbery says what about his connection with the invaders in the moon i haven't had a chance to find out that there were too many people around the jail hospitals so anderson asked me not to question them there we might be able to hurt but are they going to try to find out something yes i'm going to move them under guard to a private sanitarium where we can question him without any danger of the story leaking out throwing the whole country into a it's about time you got here the cops are every already was had someone over the radio right now
sense that it actually used those words but the way it all went down is an agreement to the guideline obviously are not the guidelines part agreement or the range twenty five years it's  counsel when i mean there's no question that the judge operate under the under a wide degree of discretion there's no debate that he could have taken a strike most reduced and it will go to the integrity of the system when argument on that that's unreasonable applications far as that's first prong was the concern on the second prong we would argue there is also no no no i'm reasonable application of united states supreme court precedent violation instead of a consecutive call violation twenty six years to life and less credit that was the deal that he made when he was in front of  get confused and where his argument is confusing is that on the one hand he's arguing that defense counsel stipulated to twenty five years to life that he never should have done that because that's a bad deal if that's what he's arguing then his recourse was to go through the state course on a motion to withdraw that plainly on the basis that counsel didn't give him good representation if you did sense doesn't even have a right to make a remand motion and that court has no duty to even listen to one if the court understood its an open plea agreement the court also understood its discretion for that he would have gotten a two strikes sentence we have a judge and you're not looking from judge to judge to judge we're looking at the san bernardino superior court and we have a judge that heard a rant on the merits and under people versus williams which is state law it would be end of views of discretion to strike the strike and this court i e the san bernardino superior court would not have the strike not only do you have no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome you have a no possibility of a favorable outcome so what's going to happen here is that essentially
and you can do it i'm not sure but it's worth trying anything is better than sitting here like tin ducks in a shooting gallery and i'd only agree if you're willing to make the attempt you can certainly have permission how soon can you start right away the rocket ship is all fueled and ready  sure you don't want to go alone no not this time this is just a scouting trip to try to find out to keep the whole mary how do you expect to do that i'm lucky i'll be able to capture one of the moment and get some information out of h was just lucky i think that one of the men who got the loan area we're going to get there in time for you to take his place we better hurry and
too bad you lost at reagan and have a tough time getting another one know we have a chance of getting one we couldn't possibly attack a city with any of our weapons that isn't the worst of it they've already attracted have voices a ship so they know about where we are only a question of time until they find one