MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
now the police conduct that we're looking at a particular here on the first degree aggravated robbery in a sort of basically has two parts where you have a simple out really while armed with a dangerous weapon because minnesota law supports a simple robbery with the use of mere force not enough to cause pain or injury that is the last and violent and because minnesota law allows conviction for the mere possession of a dangerous weapon  rested upon nothing more than the least of the acts from new laws on the offense of conviction in the united states versus bell this court noted that if there is a realistic probability that a state may somebody who uses or threatens the imminent use of force against any person to overcome the person's resistance or powers of resistance to or to compel acquiescence in the taking or carry order properties property force is not mere possession of a of a gun or a knife something that's designed to to to be a weapon even if it hadn't even that conceal even if the victim doesn't even know it's there even if it's not intended by the perpetrator possession of a sawed off shotgun was not a violent felony merely possession without an intent to use fall short of the use attempted use or threaten use of physical force against a person of another that is the arm for clinical it it that is for several reasons outlined in the government's brief but i'd like to focus on two reasons here today the first is that there's no reason to revisit this court's precedent that already holds that robbery is  assumes that because this court revisited the issue of arkansas robbery and he said that that necessarily allows this panel to reconsider minnesota robbery and i think that that  discounts chris johnson and volt battery statute that could be committed by any bodily to any offensive touching even the slightest touch minnesota robbery does not define force in that same way instead minnesota robbery is essentially a complication of common law and i think it's very important to focus on what critics johnson did and did not do because that provides the simple answer in this aiding and abetting first degree robbery is not persuaded by a binding precedent argument if i may briefly turn to the second circuit part of the arguments if you want to consider the issue you knew well it's going back to district judges feel about this is different this line of argument is decided by the judges in the district of minnesota i don't know that she's referring to your line of argument or she's not but i can tell you that that is actually talking about three simple robbery convictions mr yes i think and one aggravated robbery correct that we're not concerned with the aggravated robbery well i think that's the one we talked about before judge ronnie most extensively so to that extent i can say we can ignore it but i think you know it's not whatever wins the talking about here right what it would you know he has multiple ways you can get thank you for the argument the case is submitted madam
innocent explanation but it might not and the supreme court noted in a word legislation as well that running from the police well that could have an innocent explanation but it doesn't necessarily have to and reasonable suspicion is really means the police have a right to clear up any kind of ambiguity move when they have a basis to proceed even though they have no basis to step in you know you're concerned he had his license plate the ticket display so ruled it out
i've got that right or close to right if that applies did your policy i would it how does it affect the premium determination process oh it may be maybe your client is never as the premium is not so tentative and it's subject to audit at least one and i guess there were two here so it seems to me that it just that the impact of the district court's at the real problem underlying that may be lurking here other than simply greed d oh well it hurts just look at this pacific situation we have three folks who are listed or wanting premiums for all those employees and the and similarly situated but with all due respect to the district court they were because it was focused on the idea that we weren't claiming to get reimbursed  counsel are you seeking return of earnings the payments made on these three people are you just seeking the premiums on all jones act employees because you're claiming there was a r they can be if there are more at any point and that insurance risk stuff your client could have object could have objected to the claims your client couldn't put these claimants or and other is never materialized that's just like when there's a car accident and you put in a claim to state farm and they and they sat out their adjuster and they assert the other guy's the blank successfully had they and so they don't have to pay driver seat in terms of claims determination one under the terms of the policy end of the law generally it's the killer who's in charge and then the driver seat on claims determination well we would be able to do that if it was the ordinary course where you could do that underwriting  st and you could determine well here's here's your specific about how you're going back to underwriting what we're talking about the claims with respect to these three individuals that liberty paid off and i said well because because if you aren't took the i'm sorry is the manager who made the statement and advocated or is employees that they were not seamen when they were doing the job that caused them injury that they in fact the district court finding that mr murphy was off think we argue that at that time and it was mentioned by the by liberty mutual in their brief that we're now claiming that he was wrong he was maritime areas doing construction work so if they were injured when they were on shore doing other work they may have been covered by the long term but that's beside the point we audited and we showed them on audit they were all seated and then what happened is that there was a reference spec to the audit that was done and the risk read through spec to audit showed that there was no actual risk for any of the seamen and any of this three people that they would in some way move out of that five occasion into something else so that's what actual risk seems to me to be common sense why why would you do a wrecker respective audit unless you were trying to determine whether or not there was actual risk not whether
and normally a person will have what they call a bell curve on that and you start out and you're not quite up to strange story or you start out well then the next time you squeeze a little harder a little harder a little harder there goes off and then you start getting tired and it goes back down and everybody will do the same thing and if you don't do that right complaints in forming his opinion i believe thomas should have skewed also relied on the objective evidence that claimants response to treatment and so forth all appropriate medical factors but requirement for having not submitted that evidence earlier it's my position that there is no good cause if you compare the regulation there is there is no good cause requirement  described in deciding your client was the same for the for getting yes there is very much factually inaccurate first of all it's partially an accurate because it's factually incomplete yes he was he did severely and he had to start rowing to save as a result of that his plane was so severely exacerbated that shortly thereafter he wound up having fusion surgery of a sparking i don't think that but we don't get to substitute our judgment and i don't see why it's not good enough under the substantial evidence well your honor this brings up a tricky question in the standards of review first of all you are absolutely correct we do have the substantial evidence standard of review but when rejecting a claim it's testimony now you might say substantial evidence is a low standard clear able to perform his work during that period of time there as for the absence jackie cardia they they said that he was in level nine pain according to him and his pulse was only eighty two well i security that's fine but i'm not going to quote make him do save by writing a letter that he has to say he thought it was premature to give up that was back i believe in one nine hundred ninety seven that e and basically saying this is a chronic pain whiner well the purchaser did some testing and discovered that this guy had some pretty severe pathology in his cervical spine and he wound up having multiple multiple i'm not i'm just well one to know where that comes in you are i think it is because the ninth circuit case law says that in reviewing these records see which case it is i can't remember the cites multiple but the evidence which detracts from the conclusion which sailed a reach and i think that first of all it's a it's a want to stand up there first of all dr murray was missing things when it was being skeptical second of in the last two and a half or three years do you have an anecdotal sense of how many people prevailing their attention at the hearing level and how many people do not know anecdotal but i can tell you that the agency maintain
however the bottom line that the board of immigration of hill says that you are to the petitioner you cannot overcome the burden is in reference to the harmful effect of the minor child and what has taken face before the immigration dies before the board of immigration of heroes as well ago and so what the petitioner didn't this case was to make documentation that in a very similar relationship between a union member of the union and the son of that person that he presented as an immigration judge as well as the testimony of his mother which substantiated the facts that some of the additional family members in colombia and the concerns that she had as a result of the country report corpus finding that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime the primary issue before the primary issues before the score are whether the board appropriately applied as s and ls standard to and in addition to going on to the convention against torture that immigration judge analyze that and found that mr figural was not tortured and that has this relationship no relationship that others would that people in columbia would associate mr finn role as having any of the same opinion for which he would be tortured if he were to return there are we talking  claims he's a role as relative of his father the relatives that remain in colombia have not been tortured since his and his father's departure there again noted that he and his father had not had much from relationships in the past that in a hypothetical situation i would say where the two people the problems find might have been doing activities together that might have formed the basis of the torture but this is not the case and the board of immigration appeals upheld that decision mr penrose and then filed a motion to reopen claiming ineffective assistance of counsel with the board of immigration appeals and at this time the  in before this court and claims that y l applies and that it is not a higher standard but rather it is a different standard and after that i think the attorney general was very clear that he was intending that a higher stand and in the wilds of station and he stated and i quote it is my considered judgment that aggravated felonies involving unlawful trafficking and controlled substances presumptively constitute particularly serious crimes within the meaning of section two forty one the three b and i only under the most extenuating circumstances that are both extraordinary and compelling would departure from this interpretation be warranted or cristobal is clearly a higher and we do want to hear about why it is more likely than not that i'm your client would be charging upon return to colombia f as far as i know the extended family members have not been persecuted in colombia but however that's not to say that they share the same had relationships that are executing the same relationship of father and son that was that was more likely than not he truly attempted to demonstrate that the relationship itself between a father and son and what the father participate in and the organizations that were similarly participated by petitioner's father he too would be persecuted tortured
you know where the you're going knowledge about their birth or that you grew up with while you know the cases or have discussed that largely i cases where there were statements for fuel purposes yes your honor i do because that was not a basis for the appeal mr monti it is testimony that certainly i don't think it falls squarely within the exception for statements of family history spoke spanish given the length of time he had known mr montana and the circumstances the fact that he's married to his cousin it would seem that he would certainly have a valid basis to draw up for himself to draw the impression based on all of same group that wound up meeting up together and one of getting into the same vehicle driven by mr jalili also testified that he was to pay fifteen hundred dollars to be brought into the united states and  undocumented alien because there there was always the possibility given these facts and circumstances that there was some who have a citizenship claim if it's possible if the jurors discredited mr b in a way over that mr what is critical and stressing the financial gain argument here your honour's is not the back and forth that occurred between counsel prior to trial regarding election charging  it is critical to look at what in financial gain here is what's here he was presented to the jury what was argued to the jury the only evidence presented to the jury was that mr jolly was an aider and abettor both of the material witnesses who testified testified they had that they did not negotiate with mr jolly that they were not brought to the united states by mr jalili and that clearly the defendant did not bring in the illegal aliens we know that so not only is the others solely going towards eating a bang theory but the argument is confirming that in the very next page that page sixty five the argument goes it doesn't matter whether he brought them in or not what matters is whether he was helping somebody else who is making sure they get bro it's clear she didn't bring them in the prosecution conceded that so we really don't have a dispute despite the fact that we declined to aleck's between charging theories in advance of trial it illegal alien for commercial advantage or private financial gain even if the defendant personally did not commit the act or acts constituting the crime but aided and abetted and its commission and that's clearly describing the situation that was presented to the jurors then the very first element requires that the jury find the on the reasonable doubt that first the crime of bringing in an illegal alien for some commercial event i'm sorry for commercial advantage or this instruction meets the test that is what the jurors were supposed to be instructed as what the government was required to prove and that is what the jury necessarily found the government did in fact prove beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of this verdict in terms of the final two issues raised on appeal the duplicity and the unanimity requirement i think that they are clearly dealt with by garcia and given the
entirely detached from the guideline range what the district court did was say i regret an upward variance on these factors right and even if i cause of the victim's dad now i understand the supreme court rejected that interpretation and buried it the government had advance that the supreme court called that your premise that interpretation of the statute but i think for the reasons that  for a judge to be able to do a variance in the abstract he's always very has some understanding of what the baseline would be if the guidelines are part and so what he's the suggestion is if you've got a mistake understanding what the guy running that is going to have some interference on there and if he understood instead that results from the rules don't apply the departure in the event of
yes the government asked him to do that to be sure the fleet defendant fully understood but it better if you were to testify of them he was given about thirty minutes to talk say your client is intimidated and a discussion of his actual risks with his lawyer for half an hour and somehow their identifying information of course this was an issue that came up in the  together to a salary and random dates they actually had does that mean they can read but the existence of an agreement as we explained in our supplemental brief can be inferred from a course of conduct and a working relationship over a period of time it doesn't have to be with the secretaries and also with some of his other patients some of whom apparently may or may not have known that their identifying information was being used and they were benefiting because they didn't have to pay co pays when they went and sort of pick up longest period any of the secretaries he could have agreed to with word and i believe in less than two years but i hesitate to commit to something i'm not sure but the record probably but again that said i think the course of conduct it's just doing the word mary things the secretary does then to infer that that shows that they agreed on it so is there any evidence about the secretary's knowledge of the fraudulence of any of these testify the district judge has his way to conduct a colloquy with dr to the grave to ensure that he understood the advice that he was giving up and then at the end of that colloquy he had an additional about thirty minute period to consult with his attorneys amount of the interaction and again especially on this current record there's just no basis to conclude that it was threatening or coercive so particularly given the standard of review which is deferential to the judge who had his finger on the pulse of the evidence of the trial record in which the defendant indicates that he understands his right not right to not testify the prosecution is over concern of the therapy and knowing voluntary decision it's pretty unusual i don't remember seeing this before when the defendant has made a decision to testify that the prosecution or isotropy him on the record call the colloquy to be sure he understands the implications of testify under seen them before pretty unusual
as to whether the employer has control over their premises and that's why you have to differ we would be a lot more bill telephone were the employer didn't have control over the pay so here the employer they are saying there's no dispute that the employer had control of the  each of those cases referenced lunch breaks as you can see from the briefs the fact this is not a lunch break cases it is a short fifteen minute break in the morning we know launch has been deemed to be incidental to employment  you know it's authorized break ok so you sit through does it matter with the purpose was or are you going to i believe does your honor believe it has to be incidental to work in this case i don't believe big he's saying look this is connected because it occurred to regularly as a result of a hazardous condition and the employees there was promises i'm like where you have a slip and fall people are going to help the public if the employer has control o with the difference is that a court in the case law i think once you have something they are performing an activity is not incidental to your work then i think you have to move on down to whether or not you're exposed to a greater risk or there's no  type of case law in terms that had to be on premise and they were only applying off premises case law so i wrote in my brief that it was a manifest weight and responded likewise
one point to district court said i'm not going to compare you to the higher up that's a different kind of a different kind of guy and he does a comparison to the mechanic who repairs the car and puts in certainly have to interpret it probably in a government housing where where where did you ask him to interpret it properly other than making a profit or that says here where we fit with it don't you have some obligation to correct the judge when he's making an error in front of you your statement that you didn't know and then when he gets to sentencing he says but i don't find it credible i'm not sure how you can take a statement at face value and not find it credible without making a fact a termination
anybody else around there bit say that this kid must be a pretty tough guy i hate to make him face to face
at that point both parties as i read the briefs seem to presume that we would do stage two for frank's analysis as if this were a suppression hearing could you explain to me why that is so why if we found in your favorite it was an intentional omission of material completed the affidavit withheld in the chain of command those same facts from anyone else whose approval was required to see the warrant board is that issued on the basis of the information that was given one possibility is that the governmental action in withholding that information from the magistrate because it was information that it's clear they knew and that clearly could be relevant is in itself enough for you to win even in the face of a defense of qualified immunity but another possibility is and this is i'd like you to address even if it was clear that they had this information and they withheld that information and that information could bear on the question and it would be good practice to give it nonetheless when we look at all the evidence together the omitted evidence and the evidence  what about the fact that the police determined that the truck that sr had said was taken from him was and was being put up for sale they found it on craigslist screened do with that fact reference to the state statute that's in place to work with the police supposed to have included in the affidavit you say the power of attorney wouldn't that have been misleading if they thought that there was a hierarchy geisha under the law  did not outrageousness plaintiffs opposing or additional statements of fact that in actuality meticulously meant for the record and credited the plaintiff qualifications and considering the facts and also accept many of those you would want to include they're relevant if i was a magistrate i would have run to of heard all that before i made my decision to grant the warm ok it may be also be the case that having heard it all exact same record the defendant who is no facing a criminal conviction says i'd like to suppress the evidence of the search warrant because i want to show that the officer knew all these facts and intentionally didn't include them so i'd like a phrase here you'd say he's not entitle to a fracture kayaked ok this is your argument depend on that not necessarily still are you just saying it's not clear he'd be entitled to a friend's hearing and cause analysis per for whether somebody committed tamped then there wouldn't be any reason to outline and the fact is that