MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
seventeen one one seven is that part time employees do not are not scheduled to were they six or eight basic were they don't have  that with respect cook with respect to each employee in his organization each employee in the organization there's subsection congress and in this particular it's a forty hour work in that particular is since it didn't say said all the ways and by saying specifically with respect to each employee the subsections must refer then to egypt fully unless the subsection is specifically designated for full time which it does in the full time but  saying is you have to build all of these concepts together fifty five forty six in terms of pay for holidays sixty one over three  take it the decision is that there's absolutely no no ambiguity whatsoever in the statute that the term basic forty hour work week is equal to basic work week which equals statute said the basic forty hour work week schedule of five days monday through friday were possible and the two legs outside the basic work week are consecutive so they connected basic work week it right there with forty hour work week and so you think you think  organization and that clearly suggests that we're not just talking about each full time employee that that would also include part time employees is that not a fair reading of that phrase and why doesn't that sort of at both part time and full time employees like a basic not overtime work day may not exceed eight hours but the fact that the agency has to establish things for each employee doesn't mean that every one of those things will even hide every other employee
at any time before the liquidation become final the physic gently overrules gentle price and he got statutory language change that are specific to what is happening here as opposed to ten on twelve which is quite a narrow it seems i needed attention between that regulation and the other provisions right so we're supposed to let that  regular construction of that regulation override the statutory language as well as the subsequent isolation yes or no although i do agree that that if you ignore ten lines of overbuying that it is just general there is a bit of reconciliation prototype which proves the opposite of that saying it is enough with it but it isn't enough of it and and the case law says there is only one package and where there is only one statute it can only have one meaning customs ford said there are a hundred ninety thousand documents pieces of paper that have to be sent to the proper court and it's very loose and we know that your interpretation of this statute and its regulation allow you to process by custom without a certificate of origin or on the other hand i know that document and did so before customs ever made a decision so if it's nasa and the statu board's traditional claim filed under the electronic protest model there is no difference reconciliation is not a new statute and new regulation and new authority are customs to a document reconciliation is simply a filing vehicle program is what's the policy we're asking what's what's the rationale that you're willing to accept a certificate of origin a time prior to that conclusion of that customs operation t through the reconciliation prototype and customs never accepted or became satisfied apparently enough to give or that waiver so customs has no patience and the government has offered them here for treating claims differently under reconciliation than under the traditional fifteen twenty electronic module the government is saying this was a reconciliation prototype claim it didn't exist but the statute is the same statute and the regs are the same
so something that happens fairly often means that we'll get a call that there's a cat that's left inside of the building the minute or two that it takes us to get here and the few minutes try to figure out why it is such a relief certainly not least is it ties up very valuable resources police officers firefighters paramedics trying to rescue a dog in one location when so i quit three consecutive tweets out regarding the dangers keep passing vehicles and i tried to pick three different organizations and find credibility and i thought it's really more than a flyer that i want my officers to put our vehicles and my in the control officer to have is one of the resources that we used and again it talked about some of the things that people could do the video here most of the dangers and i realize that some people are in a different way some people prefer to reach arse some people refer to look at pictures and flyers you know that people don't really take a message so heartless to see me so i was trying to appeal
since the court opposing my name is robin hammond and i am here on behalf of pedro hernandez today we are here today because of yet another opinion violation in this case what happened is mr violations that occurred in this case the defense did that through but something memorandum and oral objection is made at the reasons i'm hearing so this case is a unique a pending violation case in the sense that we are here today was not required to find a specific drug quantity and so what that does is it brings the jury decision under the guise of section eight forty one be windy which puts the maximum and you get if you do the chart in the calculations you come up with a coin and then the judge stepped in that's correct but when the judge made that determination when the judge found the one thousand that was the quantity of england now than it went he went beyond i can't give you these back and i apologize and have her for that reason the record for that but but what the jury finding dead because it failed because the jury was not instructed and fact in this case is this court pointed out at the previous and previous opinion that the jury verdict is the jury instructions pacifically it says that the jury did not have to find a quantity beyond reasonable doubt and so you take that and apply it to the eight forty one the lengthy which you run as a jury finding we go back to this eight forty one v wendy and what the jury did find that the jury found her counsel guilty of this that's a catch all star chance which doesn't allow a jury quantity finding to be none of the counts of conviction there statutory maximums works he did in this case the sentences were based on a drug quantity finding that was the same drug quantity finding that this court affirmed sentences for with co your honor and i think that's what he did by stacking i don't think he was trying to get the middle of the range i think it was getting slightly more and he did so by he could have done a number of calculations to get there but and just to conclude and summarize your honour's i realize this is a novel argument and it is also a novel position that the defense stands and we have plenty we have harmless error of you and we have a new way of being able to examine that as proposed by the defense essentially what we're asking is that this court very constrained as the did excuse me that the district court drug quantity finding the constrained by the limits of what the jury actually found the jury actually found that which had mr hernandez just quantity fall within this age forty one of the one d catch all quantity forty nine you forty nine it's a maximum that can be found under
break we're so happy to be here really good experience here and just you know want to come back and try to get another one thank you
that is that you can't really hang your head on the negative test results one of the decision which gives the date of three one ninety six for the starting date of one hundred percent disability election onset date was december twenty fifth one thousand ninety five so there's just over a three month gap between those two da
anything about it not be killable in the middle i mean you look at the pictures there's nothing in figure three or four that would indicate it wouldn't just peel completely off and in fact if you look at figure three and four and i assume from looking at it guess what i'm wondering is do you necessarily you put a lot of eggs in the basket that there's got to be some stop here it's intuitively what is going on with no usable he said you could do something there's got to be a stop at some sort of a no disclosed structural element in selkirk is what he's kind of to some extent on your hands on but i'm wondering if you even need to go that far in order to prevail or is it enough in here if you do that because the the fact that when a film the art we know how to do it would know it could be done and that it could be done easily and routinely is different from that self isn't it anything like that and in fact cuts against you when you look at figure three and four not only is there not a stopping point but the film doesn't actually make contact there in the center with the lower portions of one  easy way of having some problems with the idea that the sticky business get in the way of totally removing this top but the patent counsels in two different places that user should absolutely not do that because it won't work how is that not presumptively showing that total remov fact that it could be removed and that maybe somebody would be noticing things to remove it all is different from whether this reference teaches for moving at all i think what we're going to hear is if it doesn't so you always have a reason for handling because if you're actually the other instead is before reaching the containment region so if there's either or there's two ways to use this product an instant disclose and sulk are kind of like the two ways to use the hinds product and it tells you in either way do not remove this before reaching the containment region so it's not like just relying on the user i mean i made that little joke about the incredible hulk earlier but i kind of meant it right even the incredible hulk would come along and you no matter how much he says it there put all off the fact that it could be functional aspect out there is a relevant to what we're talking about must hold it just as a han
fifty said i think this court is it would have been a slam dunk i would have definitely granted the motion worse to that effect were it not for the prejudice so it was a prejudice that the judge found but unfortunately  most of the time they're not granted or at least a fair proportion of the time they're not granted so how was the government supposed to do the strength of it the nature of it and determine whether this was indeed something that obligation was and what but you seem to be saying it is a big important case plus motions to withdraw guilty plea equals the government has to keep the witnesses and that seems like a very fond proposition cross examination i would say you know true they're not evidence and it wouldn't be argued but nevertheless it's an idea it's a pro lifer there's a motive and supply that reasonable doubt that wasn't otherwise there what is wrong with mr levine's argument that in the face of a then apparently good faith motion to withdraw the guilty plea that he wasn't up to the government that point to retain in some way mr tapia he was here he was here at the time of the motion why isn't it the government's own fault that it went ahead and deported him well at that the time that this
fine gentleman the management of this theater takes great pleasure in making this announcement to each lady attending this theatre each week that we receive absolutely free a fascinating an old saying and a true one that what is pretty easy to the eye is bound to be pleasing to the appetite i'm going to demonstrate this to you and i want you to watch it very closely the first cutter that place the handle in the center and pushed the dial this is what they call a friend curve when you fry of these they come out like donuts nice and browns serve them with your state all  and then the other sweet potatoes cut like this is wrap them into what it will batter a pancake flour and fry them when they're gordon brown's frequent molasses on serve them with strips of bacon for breakfast while they slices and you will never eat a range from any other way the potatoes not like this will not absorb the fact because they are gone the strong pineapples cut for your pineapple and he sounded cut on the same way really grindin to find this machine instead of crushing the partially cuts it clean and dry leaving every bit of the juice and every bit of a flavor now to clean cocktail in the summertime take your fresh can to the scoop them out like  out of the water around canning season when you're preserving the fruit to take the hot fruit jars out of the water like fact that machine is worth dollars and here's another one that i really know you'll enjoy having in your kitchen purposely to keep these knives sharp when they get a few strokes over the age like this and you can put a keen cutting edge or if you have a dull knife or a dull pair of scissors  your real proposition look layups became lift up the safety and turn on the key that locks that sale on the chain no harder than you were winding up your watch wind up the can you metal cup but the pounds that's the way you pick it up but there's four more to all through and i'll be friendly oh now the next two from the last lawn is what they call the sarah bernhardt cutter  invented by the head chef of the imperial hotel in the city of burns in germany you place the screw into the center of the vegetable twists the vegetable on to the thread sketch  out like a door not golden brown if you're serving a nice fish dinner or a little parsley goals in the center with the fish all around it makes a very but tie using d h did you ever tr sliced onions with the nih you know how you get wouldn't you like to have a set like this in your kitchen why of course you will now don't forget that attend this theater every week and receive this twenty will be fascinating
got the point that i'm going to focus on this specifically with regard to how crawford affects this case and also to some extent how hendrix might or might not affect this case i think  first i think that there should not be much dispute that the tapes that were made with mr smith everybody knew that if there were criminal prosecution somehow those tapes w significance of that i mean it just seems to me that the information that you're complaining about whether i made it through ok anything just to explain what was going on i'm going to disagree with you respectfully that in fact there were several statements that were being that mr puryear sent the package to that address ok so how does this fact how contribute to you because mr puryear was told during this conversation this  you what do you do with a judge when he says that clearly referring to the informant statement on the tape they're clearly not offered for the truth of the matter asserted request for an instruction plan or analysis of the very best and what the problem is that at that point crawford hadn't been decided crawford really changed the law you know now we have hendrix which basically says here's the way you want to do it and kind of laid it out versus keyes those laws about i wrote that i wrote exactly that in the case of the supreme court told me forget it you are wrong well i wrote a priest with a solid wall of circuit authority saying you don't have to do is and i think i'm actually going to use an example that sort of fits into what you stated just decency and that is if there's an automobile accident and person says to the person who's sort of accused of doing the accident  know you went through a green light and the person says no i went through a red light obviously that would be an admission and the statement you want for a green light puts it in context if the person says you went through a red light and the defendant says yes the defendant statement is clearly an admission i went through the red light but you believe that doesn't the statement from the person who made the statement after be true
another issue that the government race where we were we had our application pending before the eastern district of new york for thirteen months there was no basis or reason to file an appeal was there any think the stock the man for doing threw things at once  clear that sixty six doesn't apply here and that's true even if it's even if it's a good claim the point is that it's a claim that should have been brought under sixty one within a year and not under sixty six which has no time limit sixty b one motion in california and his petition on the merits in new york not that i'm aware of i would say if he had to choose and there's nothing in the law that require of what you were talking about was you were speculating on how one or another court might exercise its discretion that's current that's correct might choose to hold the decision was it says how the discretion should be i have seen courts i was curious about why you're arguing against yourself and i was thinking maybe there's some whilst there i don't know about no no not that i know i'm only i think you could have proceeded on both fronts i think it seemed apparent to me that he could have done both at once so it's just this does not require relief under subsection six but whenever i ask you about it you don't just give it to me yup that's it yes i did give me a whole lot more talk and extraordinary circumstances the kind of thing with this court in the supreme court recognizes extraordinary circumstances are things like being in prison without the ability to send mail to a lawyer or failing to receive notice like a strong question that needs to be addressed and why not and why not bring the sixty one application soon there was no reason to bring the sixty one application sooner because the matter was pending in the work and the court did not dismiss based on the statute of limitations in fact counsel believed it was both in both statutes of limitation one year statute of limitations as well as the extended statute of limitations and that's in the record where the  the second of the civil just records decision because it's believed that inadequate and proper petition is pending in the work that does not become an issue until the dismissal in the eastern district of new york and which time you know i'm ok you know even though it has not been addressed i think the court needs to understand the significance of the constitutional issue involved here this petitioner never had an opportunity to testify his own trial his defense counsel has echoed if he doesn't recall ever discussing thank you so thank you very much
that that's my understanding your honor and also if you look at the earnings record it's striking how many jobs held that many years jobs in two thousand and seven three in two thousand and five  were actually held you just said there was i don't know if i can remember transportation but anyway that is the claim and reasoning and in my opinion i think it doesn't matter well we don't have a lot of records but we do  mine and had worked a whole between two thousand and two thousand won and then we have a record showing that he had a chance coupled with the fact that underwent four months of mental health treatment even and didn't get any mental health treatment even when he had a driver's license which he testified was the reason he could no longer go to mental health treatment those well it wasn't completely accurate because he had more than
five for example line thirty asked of you sean wilentz makes a statement because that that's just like the motorcycle and all that shit you know what i mean and then the witness responds no shit and you know what that would have been if they charged you with that that would have been so easy to prove because i would have gone have been there in fact that that thing showed up at her house when she was in jail then  stolen motorcycle it showed up at the witnesses house again and it's certainly prejudicial and it's not relevant to whether or not my client was in possession of a firearm moving on to page one forty five so again i don't wan and on the bottom one of twenty four states asked of you will fix will fix all that scene i want to new car that's what i want yes that you will fix all that something healthy because fuck yeah the card again completely irrelevant and completely prejudicial that he apparently may have taken the car with respect to this firearm charge so any way i could continue to go through  as inappropriate prior bad act on this particular charge of being a felon in possession of firearms it's my client's position that he was convicted here because of what he had done in the past and not because what he had done in th really not an issue but what is issue is the recordings and the government's position is that the court correctly exercised its discretion in admitting these recordings because while they are the government was not provided the opportunity to present any corroborating evidence from law enforcement on that and that is cast arena statements concerning now it would be certainly open to cross examination that no from the witness about a car being stolen on multiple times came on cross examination rather than evidence or testimony being presented by the government it seemed then obviously it would be easy to edit the transcripts but it would be much harder to edit the tapes themselves given the frequency of the profane language i mean on the other hand one thing that would have been quite easy to edit it down would i guess my answer is i'm not exactly sure why it's the courts didn't ask for that to be aired out i think the other part of the fact that these costs came shortly after incident which the charge was and i think that under the circumstances it's a case to where there's testimony that the defendant was certainly  during a controlled drug transactions and in the defendant or the suspect or whoever it is of the time puts themselves out there if they're going to use profanity there and so here is the court said it is what it is in saying that the government seeks to present prejudicial evidence that in this case it was very probative to the issues of the case the elements of the charge probably his nature of it outweighed prejudicial that that's the court