flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: terms directly applicable to this case: [Warrantless searches of luggage or other property seized at the time of an arrest cannot be justified as incident to that arrest either if the “search is remote in time or place from the arrest,” or no exigency exists. Once law enforcement officers have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exclusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no longer an incident of the arrest. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 15 (97 SCt 2476, 53 LE2d 538) (1977) (citation and footnote omitted). See also Satterfield v. State, 256 Ga. 593, 597 (351 SE2d 625) (1987) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Appellant had already been Options: A. recognizing that the justification for a protective sweep of even a few minutes would be questionable in light of the officers concession that after arresting the defendant in front of his house the officer could have just put the defendant in the car and driven away B. holding that the seizure of a shotgun that the police found while searching a house a few minutes after the defendant and his girlfriend were removed and put into police cars could not be justified as a search incident to his arrest C. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene D. holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search E. holding that search conducted between 30 and 45 minutes after defendant was arrested handcuffed and placed in rear of police vehicle lacked contemporaneity requirement of search incident to arrest

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the seizure of a shotgun that the police found while searching a house a few minutes after the defendant and his girlfriend were removed and put into police cars could not be justified as a search incident to his arrest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No failure by either party to exercise any right, remedy, or option under this Agreement or any other Loan Document, or delay by either party in exercising the same, will operate as a waiver thereof. No waiver by either party will be effective unless it is in writing signed by such party, and then only to the extent specifically stated. No waiver by a party on any occasion shall affect or diminish that party’s rights thereafter to require strict performance by the other party of any provision of this Agreement. Each party’s rights under this Agreement and the other Loan Documents will be cumulative and not exclusive of any other right or remedy that that party may have.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH SECURED PARTY SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGENT INDEMNITEES, TO THE EXTENT NOT REIMBURSED BY OBLIGORS, ON A PRO RATA BASIS, AGAINST ALL CLAIMS THAT MAY BE INCURRED BY OR ASSERTED AGAINST ANY SUCH INDEMNITEE; PROVIDED THAT ANY CLAIM AGAINST AN AGENT INDEMNITEE RELATES TO OR ARISES FROM ITS ACTING AS OR FOR AGENT (IN THE CAPACITY OF AGENT); PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO SECURED PARTY SHALL HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY ANY AGENT INDEMNITEE HEREUNDER TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH CLAIM IS DETERMINED IN A FINAL, NON-APPEALABLE JUDGMENT BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO RESULT FROM THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF SUCH AGENT INDEMNITEE. In Agent’s discretion, it may reserve for any Claims made against an Agent Indemnitee, and may satisfy any judgment, order or settlement relating thereto, from proceeds of Collateral prior to making any distribution of Collateral proceeds to Secured Parties. If Agent is sued by any receiver, trustee or other Person for any alleged preference or fraudulent transfer, then any monies paid by Agent in settlement or satisfaction of such proceeding, together with all interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) incurred in the defense of same, shall be promptly reimbursed to Agent by each Secured Party to the extent of its pro rata share.

assistant: Indemnifications
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All obligations of Applied under the Terms with respect to the Award shall be binding upon any successor to Applied, whether the existence of such successor is the result of a direct or indirect purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise, of all, or substantially all, of the business and/or assets of Applied. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4, in the event any such successor does not agree to be bound by the Terms, the Award granted hereunder shall immediately become vested.

assistant: Successors
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Effective as of immediately prior to the Distribution (the “Effective Time”), Manitowoc ParentCo hereby assigns, transfers and conveys to SpinCo all of Manitowoc ParentCo’s rights, title and interest in, to and under the Employment Agreements; and SpinCo hereby accepts the assignment from Manitowoc ParentCo and agrees to assume expressly and perform from and after the Effective Time all of the terms, conditions and obligations imposed by the Employment Agreements. SpinCo shall be substituted for Manitowoc ParentCo under all provisions of the Employment Agreements with effect from and after the Effective Time.

assistant: Assignments
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Person will have, as a result of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, any valid right, interest or claim against or upon the Company or any Purchaser for any commission, fee or other compensation pursuant to any agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by or on behalf of the Purchaser.

assistant: Brokers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are not properly before the court and generally need not be addressed.” United States v. Castillo-Garcia, 117 F.3d 1179, 1197 (10th Cir.1997). See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Greif 906 F.Supp. 1446, 1456-57 (D.Kan. 1995) (noting a motion to reconsider is not a mechanism to raise arguments that should have been raised in the first instance or to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected by the court). 2. Analysis Although plaintiff suggests that the court made numerous errors in its May 8, 2002, M & O, the vast majority of plaintiffs arguments are merely a recitation of her previous positions. At best, these contentions reshuffle plaintiffs arguments previously considered and rejected by the court. See Voelkel v. General Motors, Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>). As such, the court declines to revisit Options: A. holding that merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the bia does not constitute specifying errors of fact or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider alteration omitted B. holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence C. holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected D. holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider when the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected E. holding that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: expressly conferred jurisdiction in district courts for cases with a minimum of $500.00 in controversy. Tex. Const, art. V, § 8 (1876); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art.l906(6) (1925), repealed by Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S. ch 480, § 26(1), 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 1720, 2048. When article 1906 was codified it no longer included the $500.00 minimum amount and instead provides that district courts have jurisdiction as provided by Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.007 (West 2004). At the time of the codification, Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution provided that a district court’s minimum juris 7947, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Mar. 1, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), Arteaga v. Jackson, 994 S.W.2d 342, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied)(<HOLDING>), Moore v. TDCJ-CID, No. 13-04-425-CV, 2005 WL Options: A. holding after the 1985 constitutional and statutory amendments district courts jurisdiction extends to cases involving more than 20000 B. holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation C. holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation of goods D. holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts E. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding after the 1985 constitutional and statutory amendments district courts jurisdiction extends to cases involving more than 20000
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: gave Ms. O'Tool a raise and made it retroactive to the date when she would otherwise have received it. The court has previously rejected analogous arguments and, for the same reasons, does so here. See Kennedy v. General Motors Corp., 226 F.Supp.2d 1257 (D.Kan.2002) (rejecting defendant's argument that disciplinary suspensions were not adverse employment actions where they were ultimately cleared from record and defendant agreed to pay plaintiff for all lost time); Reese v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 31 F.Supp.2d 908, 914-15 (D.Kan.1998) (rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff’s loss-of-seniority claim was rendered moot where plaintiff's seniority was restored through the grievance process); see also Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc., 149 F.3d 1098, 1104 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Defendants also contend in their papers, Options: A. holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury B. recognizing retaliation involving promotion as adverse employment actions under the first amendment C. recognizing that a set of actions may constitute an adverse employment action when considered collectively even though some actions do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action individually D. holding that adverse employment actions include poor evaluations E. recognizing that employment actions can be adverse even if such actions are subsequently withdrawn

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that employment actions can be adverse even if such actions are subsequently withdrawn
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Pay and discharge all taxes, assessments and governmental charges or levies imposed upon it or on its income or profits or on any of its property prior to the date on which any penalties attach thereto, provided that Grantee shall not be required by this to pay any such tax, assessment, charge or levy, the payment of which is being contested in good faith and by proper proceedings.

assistant: Taxes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 400 F.Supp. 978 (S.D.N.Y.1975), aff'd, 546 F.2d 502 (2d Cir.1976); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 707 F.Supp. 1368 (E.D.N.Y.1988). Additionally, this construction avoids the necessity of disregarding the first paragraph of the definition that refers to “... multiple, ... sporadic or related acts of sexual abuse or molestation,” which the Court has found plainly covers both related and unrelated acts. See City of Homestead v. Johnson, 760 So.2d 80, 83 (Fla.2000) (stating that pursuant to Florida contract law “any ambiguity in the terms should be resolved in favor up upholding the purpose of the agreement and giving effect to every term in the agreement”); See also Sugar Cane Growers Coop, of Fla., Inc. v. Pinnock, 735 So.2d 530, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 Options: A. recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions B. holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract C. holding that contracts should be interpreted to avoid absurd results D. holding that where two statutes seemingly conflict they should be interpreted to give effect to both E. holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall in any way abrogate the right of the Company and the Employee to enforce by injunction or otherwise the due and proper performance and observance of the several covenants herein contained to be performed by the Employee or the Company or to recover damages for breach thereof.

assistant: Enforceability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Prestige Cruises, N.V., 898 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla.Ct.App.2005) (affirming dismissal based on forum non conveniens without consideration of federal maritime choice-of-law standards); Tananta v. Cruise Ships Catering & Servs. Int'l, N.V., 909 So.2d 874, 881-84 (Fla.Ct.App.2004) (en banc) (contrasting federal maritime choice-of-law analysis with Florida’s forum non conveniens doctrine). Although both Florida and the federal “base of operations” test under Rhoditis consider the extent of the defendant’s business operations, Florida’s forum non usiness activities in the United States can satisfy the “base of operations” requirement regardless of whether the particular activities in question were related to the plaintiffs injury. See, e.g., Rhoditis, 398 U.S. at 307-08, 90 S.Ct. 1731 (<HOLDING>); Szumlicz, 698 F.2d at 1195 (hold ing “base of Options: A. holding that the us attorneys office is the alter ego of the united states exercising its sovereign power of prosecution B. holding that new york convention governed award rendered in the united states that arose out of dispute involving two nondomestic parties and one united states corporation C. holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states D. holding base of operations requirement fulfilled where defendant kept its largest office in new york was 95 owned by a us domiciliary who had lived in the united states for twentyfive years and derived its entire income from shipping cargo to or from the united states E. holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer

assistant: The best answer is D. holding base of operations requirement fulfilled where defendant kept its largest office in new york was 95 owned by a us domiciliary who had lived in the united states for twentyfive years and derived its entire income from shipping cargo to or from the united states
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes in their entirety all prior undertakings and agreements of the Company and you with respect to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may not be modified in a manner that impairs your rights heretofore granted, except with your consent or as necessary to comply with applicable law or stock exchange rules.

assistant: Entire Agreements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: bring this action, but also lacks standing to seek voluntary dismissal. See Response. The Court notes that the cases upon which both Plaintiffs and Defendants rely involved Chapter 7 debtors, who without question lose their standing to pursue prepetition causes of action upon filing petitions for bankruptcy. See Wieburg v. GTE Southwest Inc., 272 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir.2001); In re MortgageAmerica Corp., 714 F.2d 1266 (6th Cir.1983); In re Raymond Const. Co. of Florida, Inc., 6 B.R. 793 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1980). The rule is different for Chapter 13 debtors, however. A Chapter 13 debtor does not lose his right to sue upon filing his petition for bankruptcy. See Olick v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 145 F.3d 513, 515-16 (2d Cir.1998); In re James, 210 B.R. 276, 278 (Bankr.S.D.Miss.1997) (<HOLDING>). Rather, a Chapter 13 debtor “retains Options: A. holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees avoidance power B. holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case C. holding that a chapter 13 debtor lacked standing to avoid a mortgage under 544a3 D. holding that a chapter 13 debtor may sue and be sued and controls whether and on what terms to settle his lawsuit E. holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a chapter 13 debtor may sue and be sued and controls whether and on what terms to settle his lawsuit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the firearm will not be used to enhance the defendant’s sentence. Pofahl, 990 F.2d at 1486. Here, however, Diana Buchanan’s only objection to the findings in the presentence report was based on her acquittal of the charge of using or carrying a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The fact that the jury acquitted Diana Buchanan on this charge does not, without more, amount to a factual dispute with the presentence report that Diana Buchanan possessed a firearm within the meaning of § 2D1.1(b)(1). The district court adopted the findings in the presentence report. Without a specific factual controversy, further factual findings under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3)(D) are not required. Compare United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 943 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>) with Pofahl, 990 F.2d at 1486 (remanding for Options: A. holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry B. holding that the district court may adopt facts contained in the psr without further inquiry if the facts have an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence C. holding that sentencing court may not adopt facts from codefendants presentence report that was not disclosed to defendant D. holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi E. holding that bald unsupported assertions by the defendant cannot refute presentence investigation report

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where defendant did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute presentence report district court was free to adopt facts in psi without further inquiry
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller shall hold Buyer harmless from any and all claims arising out of or related to (i) actions taken by Seller in its capacity as a shareholder of the Company prior to the Closing date, or (ii) any lawsuits against the Corporation arising during the period of time prior to the Closing date; (iii) any requests, audits or comment letters issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission related to the period of time prior to the Closing date.

assistant: Indemnifications
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or e-mail attachment at the e-mail address set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on a Trading Day, (b) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or e-mail attachment at the e-mail address set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (c) the second (2nd) Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto. To the extent that any notice provided pursuant to any Transaction Document constitutes, or contains, material, non-public information regarding the Company or any of the Subsidiaries, the Company shall simultaneously file such notice with the Commission pursuant to a Current Report on Form 8-K.

assistant: Notices
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that neither the Borrower nor any other Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender, and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an assignee in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Section, (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (d) of this Section, or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of paragraph (e) of this Section (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in paragraph (d) of this Section and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

assistant: Successors
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: period at issue.” 5 So.3d at 1198. Cutler’s complaint, on the other hand, alleges that the tumor/lesion culminated in a legal injury on February 11, 2015, despite “an adverse beginning of the growth process within the four years following June 28, 2005.” (Emphasis added.) Based on this averment, the trial court concluded that, regardless of the date of the discovery of any injury, the statute of repose would have begun to run at the latest by June 28, 2009, and would have expired at the latest by June 28,2013. We agree. It is well settled that in medical-malpractice actions the legal injury occurs at the time of the negligent act or omission, regardless of whether the injury is or could be discovered within the statutory period. See, e.g., Ex parte Hodge, 153 So.3d 734 (Ala.2014)(<HOLDING>); Ex parte Sonnier, 707 So.2d 635 Options: A. holding that limitations on an insureds claims of negligent procurement negligent misrepresentation and violations of the insurance code and deceptive trade practices act began to run when insured purchased life insurance coverage and the discovery rule did not apply because the nature of the injury was not inherently undiscoverable B. holding that patient suffered actionable legal injury and period of repose began to run when physician left hemostat clamp in patients body regardless of when or to what extent the complications from the negligent act would be discovered C. holding that statute of limitations began to run on patients medicalmalpractice action against surgeon after first operation during which surgeon failed to locate hernia even though full extent of patients injury was not known until second operation D. holding that limitations began to run when the defendant began wrongfully discharging water containing harmful chemicals on the plaintiffs land and not on the date when the extent of the damages to the land were fully ascertainable E. holding that period of limitations on a patients negligence cause of action began to run when the patient knew or had reason to know about the foreign object left in her body

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that patient suffered actionable legal injury and period of repose began to run when physician left hemostat clamp in patients body regardless of when or to what extent the complications from the negligent act would be discovered
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Employer may terminate and liquidate this Agreement by taking irrevocable action to terminate and liquidate within the thirty (30) days preceding or the twelve (12) months following a Change in Control. This Agreement will then be treated as terminated only if all substantially similar arrangements sponsored by the Employer which are treated as deferred under a single plan under Treasury Regulations §1.409A-1(c)(2) are terminated and liquidated with respect to each participant who experienced the Change in Control so that the Executive and any participants in any such similar arrangements are required to receive all amounts of compensation deferred under the terminated arrangements within twelve (12) months of the date the Employer takes the irrevocable action to terminate the arrangements.

assistant: Change In Control
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Regardless of any action the Company takes with respect to any or all income tax (including non-U.S., U.S. federal, state and/or local taxes), social insurance, payroll tax, payment on account or other tax-related withholding (“ Tax-Related Items ”), you hereby understand, acknowledge and agree that the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items legally due by you as a result of this Agreement, including the Relocation Letter, the SPA, or otherwise, is and remains your responsibility and that the Company: (a) makes no representations or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with any aspect of this Agreement, including the Relocation Letter, or the SPA; and (b) does not commit to structure the terms of this Agreement, including the Relocation Letter, or the SPA or any aspect of the Retention Payment or other payments or benefits you may receive hereunder, under the Relocation Letter, under the SPA or otherwise to reduce or eliminate your liability for Tax-Related Items. If you are or become subject to taxation in more than one country between the date of this Agreement and the date of any relevant taxable or tax withholding event, as applicable, you hereby understand, acknowledge and agree that the Company may be required to withhold or account for Tax-Related Items in more than one country. Prior to any relevant taxable or tax withholding event, as applicable, you will pay or make adequate arrangements satisfactory to the Company to satisfy all Tax-Related Items. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Section 10 shall affect the Tax Equalisation Policy in the Relocation Letter, which shall apply pursuant to its terms during the term of your assignment to the United Kingdom.

assistant: Taxes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: license for the Diablo Canyon plant." Id. at 4. 225 . Id. at 5. 226 . See Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b (1982). 227 . We thus do not decide whether the Commission’s deliberations in this proceeding are protected from disclosure by exemption 10 of the Sunshine Act, see id. § 552b(c)(10), nor do we consider the possible relevance, if any, of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 727 F.2d 1195 (D.C.Cir.1984), which is heavily relied on by petitioners. 228 . Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Environmental Protection Agency, 627 F.2d 1095, 1105 n. 18 (D.C.Cir.1979), cert, denied, 446 U.S. 952, 100 S.Ct. 2917, 64 L.Ed.2d 808 (1980). 229 . See National Courier Ass’n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1229, 1241-42 (D.C.Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); Norris & Hirshberg, Inc. v. Securities & Options: A. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications B. holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege C. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address D. holding that internal agency memoranda are presumptively part of the record on review subject to any privilege the agency might claim one of which is of course that which protects internal memoranda embodying the deliberative processes of the agency and its staff E. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that internal agency memoranda are presumptively part of the record on review subject to any privilege the agency might claim one of which is of course that which protects internal memoranda embodying the deliberative processes of the agency and its staff
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: about the homicide. It is the entire above-quoted statement that defendant’s counsel moved to suppress. However, the only portion of the statement that the State sought to admit against the defendant was the first sentence: “I’m not going to talk to you now because what I say could put me in jail for a long time.” The transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress indicates that the trial court gave the defense the option of admitting only that second part of the first sentence, or admitting the entire statement, consisting of the two full sentences. After again objecting to the admission of any part of the statement, the defense indicated that if the phrase “because what I say could put me in jail for a long time” was admitted, then the entire stateme c. 49, 660 N.E.2d 240 (1996) (<HOLDING>). We find no merit in the remaining arguments Options: A. holding incustody statements which stem from an illegal arrest are not rendered admissible merely because defendant had been given miranda warnings B. holding that statements given after miranda warnings are admissible even when the arrest that preceded the statements was constitutionally deficient C. holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible D. holding that fresh miranda warnings are necessary after right to silence has been invoked E. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 104 S.Ct. at 3467, 82 L.Ed.2d at 762. 9 . Id. at —, 104 S.Ct. at 3467, 82 L.Ed. at 762 (footnote omitted). 10 . United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). 11 . See cases cited supra note 6. 12 . 747 F.2d 287 at 290-292 (5th Cir.1984). 13 . See Gagne v. Town of Enfield, 734 F.2d 902, 904 (2d Cir.1984); Russo v. State of New York, 672 F.2d 1014, 1022-23 (2d Cir.1982); Reel v. Arkansas Dep't of Corrections, 672 F.2d 693, 697-99 (8th Cir.1982); Luria Bros. & Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 347, 356-58 (3d Cir.1982); Bunting v. City of Columbia, 639 F.2d 1090, 1095 (4th Cir.1981); Haywood v. Ball, 634 F.2d 740, 743 (4th Cir.1980); Huffman v. Hart, 576 F.Supp. 1234, 1235-38 (N.D.Ga.1983); see also Redd v. Lambert, 674 F.2d 1032, 1034-37 (5th Cir.1982) Options: A. holding that attorneys fees resulting from state court litigation that does not seek to enforce federal constitutional rights but which does precede a successful 1983 suit are not attorneys fees contemplated by 1988 B. holding that 1988 attorneys fees should not be awarded when the tax injunction act 28 usc 1341 bars the plaintiff from obtaining 1983 relief C. holding that a contingentfee agreement should not act as a ceiling on the award of attorney fees under 42 usc 1988 D. holding that 1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act E. holding that a countys stormwater management charges were taxes for purposes of the tax injunction act 28 usc 1341 2006

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 1988 attorneys fees should not be awarded when the tax injunction act 28 usc 1341 bars the plaintiff from obtaining 1983 relief
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: At that hearing, Mr. Coker noted his belief that his April 1993 request for a compensation and pension examination constituted a claim for service connection for hallux valgus. The failure of the Board to discuss these issues is error. See Suttmann, supra; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991) (Board is required to consider all evidence of record and to discuss in its decision all potentially applicable provisions of law and regulation); see also Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.pp. 369, 374 (1998) (“Where the Board has incorrectly applied the law, failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations, or where the record is otherwise inadequate, a remand is the appropriate remedy.”); Meeks v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 284, 288 (1993) (st 372 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 198, 201 Options: A. holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail B. holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court C. holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record D. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error E. holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Licenses; revocation is made explicit in a filing before the bankruptcy court (which filing is not itself an order) and is implicit in the Public Notice announcing the re-auction of the Licenses previously held by NextWave. Nevertheless, as this Court's prior opinion makes clear, we think that the FCC action in question is unmistakably regulatory in nature. But even if the FCC’s acts do not amount to "decisions” or "orders” of the Commission, subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, that would not expose the FCC's acts to review in the bankruptcy court. A regulatory action short of a decision or order is an exercise of regulatory discretion that is not subject to review. See Bethesda-Chevy Chase Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 385 F.2d 967, 968 (D.C.Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Telecommunications Research & Options: A. holding allegation made in enforcement suit does not impose the kind of legal obligation with which the finality doctrine is concerned B. holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy C. holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation D. holding that a regulatory action that did not impose an obligation deny a right or fix a legal relationship was not reviewable E. holding erroneous exclusion of hearsay did not deny defendant a substantial right

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a regulatory action that did not impose an obligation deny a right or fix a legal relationship was not reviewable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: who were sentenced for offenses which occurred after the effective date of the 2002 amendment to the SRA. Varga, 151 Wn.2d at 187. Our task was to determine whether, following the 2002 amendment to the SRA, it was proper for the sentencing judges to include convictions which would have washed out based upon prior statutes and court opinions. Id. We interpreted the 2002 amendment to the SRA as a clear expression from the legislature within the statute itself to redefine “criminal history” to be applied prospectively rather than retrospectively. Id. at 191, 193. In Varga, we stated, “[h]ere endment does not apply retroactively to revive defendant’s 1975 offense that washed out under former version of the SRA); see In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 111 Wn.2d 353, 361, 759 P.2d 436 (1988) (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. Dunaway, 109 Wn.2d 207, 216, 743 Options: A. holding case ripe for review even though provision at issue would not take effect until three and a half years after the courts decision during which time congress could have repealed the provision B. holding 1986 sra amendment to wash out provision which took effect after defendants sentencing not applicable C. holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment D. holding to the same effect E. holding that plan amendment which took effect after benefits were received was inapplicable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding 1986 sra amendment to wash out provision which took effect after defendants sentencing not applicable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Nolasco frequently looking out a window at 15 Bradford Street, apparently acting as a lookout. These facts, in addition to the testimony of Zieba, would easily allow “[a]ny rational trier of fact” to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that No-lasco knowingly aided in the distribution of cocaine. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781; accord Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93C, § 32E(b)(3). Moreover, the fact that Nolasco was not present during the transfer of drugs to the officer is of little consequence to this analysis. See Commonwealth v. Lafayette, 40 Mass.App.Ct. 534, 537, 665 N.E.2d 1025 (1996) (concluding that there is no need for a defendant to be present at the scene of a crime throughout its occurrence); cf. Commonwealth v. Carmenatty, 37 Mass. App.Ct. 908, 910, 638 N.E.2d 496 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Because his role as a joint venturer has been Options: A. holding anonymous tip that someone at the residence was dealing drugs did not amount to anything the tip was never substantiated and none of the occupants were ever charged with drug dealing B. holding that the government had established that the presence of weapons was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant during his drug dealing where officers discovered handguns in residence where defendant kept cocaine base and drug paraphernalia C. holding that apprendi is not implicated where the defendant has stipulated to the amount of drugs for which he was held responsible and the district court did not rely on any fact outside of the plea agreement to determine drug quantity at sentencing D. holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing E. holding that officer had reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity when a defendant with a history of drug involvement while in an area in which numerous drug arrests had been made attempted to enter a convenience store and to swallow the drugs in his possession upon the approach of law enforcement officers

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: justifiable excuse for his failure. However, the prosecution supports this argument with cases and standards relating to successive posteonviction motions, as opposed to cases and standards relating to the initial posteon-viction motion following prosecution proceedings and, where taken, direct appeal. See, e.g., Turman v. Buckallew, 784 P.2d 774, 780 (Colo.1989) (affirming dismissal of claims raised in second habeas corpus petition because defendant failed to raise those claims in the first petition); People v. Billips, 652 P.2d 1060, 1063 (Colo.1982) (allowing defendant to bring a constitutional claim on a successive posteonviction motion because the claim had not been fully and finally litigated in the previous posteonviction proceeding); Hubbard, 184 Colo. at 249, 519 P.2d at 948 (<HOLDING>); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Options: A. holding that absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single timely petition for writ of habeas corpus successive andor untimely petitions will be summarily denied B. holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions C. holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal D. holding that a trial court cannot summarily dismiss a section 2 1401 petition E. holding that on successive posteonviction motions the court may summarily dismiss newlyasserted grounds absent sufficient excuse

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that on successive posteonviction motions the court may summarily dismiss newlyasserted grounds absent sufficient excuse