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: 3.800(b), arguing the imposition of a minimum mandatory term of life is not authorized by section 775.087(2)(a)3. The trial court denied the motion. ANALYSIS We review the trial court’s interpretation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo. See Jones v. State, 966 So.2d 319 (Fla.2007). If a trial court, upon motion of defense counsel, has reasonable ground to believe that the defendant is not mentally competent to proceed, the court “shall order the defendant to be examined by no more than 3, nor fewer than 2, experts prior to the date of [a competency] hearing.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.210(b). The State does not question the general rule that a trial judge errs where she fails to appoint at least two competen cy experts. See D’Oleo-Valdez v. State, 531 So.2d 1347, 1348 (Fla.1988) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, appellant does not dispute that Options: A. holding there was no doubt that the trial judge erred in failing to appoint at least two experts B. holding that appellant was deprived of a fair trial where the jury was instructed in such a way that it was not required to find at least two elements of the offense of capital murder to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial D. holding that the trial court erred in failing to address holiday visitation E. holding that because judge who was substituted for posttrial motions erred in finding that trial court judge made mistake of law grant of new trial was error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding there was no doubt that the trial judge erred in failing to appoint at least two experts
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: We reject this argument. It conflates the concepts of “arising under Title 11” and arising because of Chapter 11. An action that arises because of a bankruptcy proceeding does not necessarily arise under the Bankruptcy Code. The Trustee’s antitrust claims are not core matters. Antitrust claims do not arise under the Bankruptcy Code and they are properly brought before an Article III court. See Castlerock 781 F.2d at 162. The outcome of the Trustee’s cause of action under the Sherman Act will not affect any parties’ rights under the administration of the estate. Because the claims could not have been decided by the bankruptcy court, they cannot be precluded by the res judicata effect of the bankruptcy court’s sale order. Cf. Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank 896 F.2d 979, 983 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, 897 F.2d Options: A. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings B. holding that the lender liability claims of the debtor are precluded by res judicata C. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings D. holding that collateral attacks on bankruptcy courts jurisdiction are barred by res judicata E. holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that lender liability claims are noncore and thus not barred by res judicata effect of bankruptcy proceedings
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: for negligent acts. The plaintiff argues that to construe RSA 508:14,1, as the defendants suggest would be in derogation of the common law. As set forth above, statutes in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted strictly. Sweeney, 151 N.H. at 241. Other jurisdictions that have interpreted similar statutory provisions have construed the phrase “any person” as referring to “any person as a member of the general public.” Conant, 51 P.3d at 1267; see also Snyder, 634 N.E.2d at 761 (“We believe that the purpose of the Recreational Use Act would not be advanced by applying the Act to a situation where an owner does not open his property to the public, but simply invites a few private persons to a picnic.”); Perrine, 911 P.2d at 1293 (same); LePoidevin by Dye, 330 N.W.2d at 563 (<HOLDING>). These courts have recognized that to hold Options: A. holding that a landowner could recover for placement of a median strip that could not have occurred but for the taking of the landowners property because the inquiry is how much has the particular public improvement decreased the fair market value of the property taking into consideration the use for which the land was taken and all the reasonably probable effects of its devotion to that use B. holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants C. recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public D. holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages E. holding that immunity is limited to the general public because the court does not presume that the legislature intended to work a wholesale change in the entire law relating to the obligations of all landowners to all entrants to the land including social guests invited to the premises for recreational purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that immunity is limited to the general public because the court does not presume that the legislature intended to work a wholesale change in the entire law relating to the obligations of all landowners to all entrants to the land including social guests invited to the premises for recreational purposes
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: lessor, assignor, or other person who regularly solicits, engages in, or enforces consumer transactions...Section 501.203(1) defines a "consumer transaction” to include a "sale ... of an item of goods, a consumer service, or an intangible to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family or household_” Weekly World News, Inc.’s sale of newspapers is sufficient to make it a "supplier” as that term is used in Fla.Stat. § 501.211(1). 2 . There may be a significant distinction between the copyright protection which extends to literary characters and that which extends to characters within those types of works which allow the character to be perceived visually, such as a comic strip character. Compare Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 755 (9th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. O'Neill v. Walt Disney Options: A. holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim B. holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion C. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy D. holding that comic book characters primarily because they have physical as well as conceptual qualities are protectable E. holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that comic book characters primarily because they have physical as well as conceptual qualities are protectable
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: (a) EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY NEW YORK STATE OR FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, AND EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVE, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT THEY MAY EFFECTIVELY DO SO, THE DEFENSE OF AN INCONVENIENT FORUM TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING. THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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: we conclude that we need not remand for reconsideration. Plaintiffs do not challenge the finding that the court described as the “primary” and “controlling” factor in its decision — that plaintiffs had willfully disobeyed the order compelling production. Given that the court deemed that factor to be controlling, even if the challenged finding is not supported by any evidence, the outcome on remand would be no different. Affirmed. 1 Plaintiffs separately argue that the trial court erred in dismissing Ota’s claims, asserting that the court did not consider lesser sanctions. However, plaintiffs do not call our attention to anything in the record showing that they preserved that issue before the trial court. See SAIF v. Harris, 161 Or App 1, 11, 983 P2d 1066, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Raising the issue with respect to the other Options: A. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal B. holding that constitutional claim that paternity suit should not be barred by statute of limitations is waived by failing to raise the issue before the trial court C. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review D. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue E. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions
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: It is the intention of the Employer that the benefits provided to the Participant and any beneficiary under this Plan and the Pension Plan together shall be no greater than would have been provided to the Participant and any beneficiary under the terms of the Pension Plan if the Participant had at all times been covered under the Pension Plan in accordance with its rules had the exclusion of the Participant from the minimum benefit described in Section 3.01(d) of Part A of the Pension Plan not existed.

assistant: Interpretations
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: into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’ ” Id. at 223, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293). The district court did not err in concluding that Watkins’s 14 days of disciplinary segregation and three-month loss of commissary, visitation, and telephone privileges did not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485-86, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (finding no liberty interest protecting against a 30-day period of disciplinary segregation); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Options: A. holding that 30day commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate the due process clause B. holding that mere negligence does not implicate the right to due process C. holding that 30day loss of cell and commissary privileges does not implicate due process concerns D. holding that punitive conditions of pretrial confinement implicate due process E. holding that thirtyday commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate due process concerns

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 30day commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate the due process clause
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: Except (i) as set forth in Section 2.19 of the Disclosure Schedules and (ii) for Benefit Plans set forth in Section 2.18(a)(i) of the Disclosure Schedules, none of the Company, any Affiliate of the Company, or the Members (or any Affiliate of the Members (including any portfolio company (as such term is commonly understood in the private equity industry) affiliated with the Members)) or any of their respective directors, officers, employees, representatives or “associates” or “immediate family” members (as defined in Rules 12b-2 and 16a-1 of the Exchange Act), (A) has any direct or indirect ownership, participation, royalty or other interest in, or is an officer, director, employee of, consultant to, or contractor for, any Person that does business, or has any Contract, with the Company or any of the Company Subsidiaries, except with respect to intercompany arrangements among the Company and the Company Subsidiaries or (B) is a party to any Contract with the Company or any Company Subsidiary, including any Contract relating to any loan to any such Person (any such Contract, a “ Related Party Agreement ”).

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: If this letter correctly states the agreement and understanding we have reached, please indicate your acceptance by countersigning the enclosed copy and returning it to me by the 45th day of receipt, or within three days after the Termination Date, which is later. You may not sign the Agreement before the Termination Date. You may revoke this Agreement for a period of seven (7) days after signing it. In order to revoke the Agreement, you must submit a written notice of revocation to Seth Tasker located at seth.tasker@infi.com. This written notice may be sent by mail, overnight mail, email or hand-delivery but must be received by no later than the close of business on the seventh day. The Agreement will not become effective or enforceable, and no payments will be made, until this revocation period has expired (“Effective Date”) without being exercised.

assistant: Effective Dates
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 shall terminate and be of no further force and effect upon the Discharge of the ABL Obligations or upon the Discharge of the First Lien Obligations, subject to the rights of the ABL Claimholders and the First Lien Claimholders, as applicable, under Section 6.04 .

assistant: Terminations
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 understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter and any and all prior agreements, understandings and representations with respect to its subject matter are hereby terminated and cancelled in their entirety and are of no further force or effect. No party shall be entitled to rely on any statement, representation or agreement not herein stated.

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: reviewing court to defer to the trial court’s judgment. An abuse of discretion occurs, however, when the trial court chooses an outcome falling outside this principled range of outcomes. We find the standard for reviewing a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion articulated in Bab-cock to be the appropriate vehicle by which to review a sentencing court’s discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences under MCL 333.7401(3). The Supreme Court has referred to the Babcock articulation as the “default abuse of discretion standard.” Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). Review of a discretionary decision requires that the trial court set forth the reasons underlying its decision. See People v Broden, 428 Mich 343, 350-351; 408 NW2d 789 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Further, MCL 333.7401(3) provides discretion Options: A. holding that the trial court improperly relied on a subsequent charge in sentencing where the trial court stated she was imposing the sentence based on the fact that you reoffended among other reasons B. holding that in order to aid the appellate review of whether an abuse of discretion has occurred at sentencing the trial court is required to articulate on the record reasons for imposing a particular sentence C. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record D. holding that district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing life sentence based on review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing taken together with the courts closing remarks E. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in order to aid the appellate review of whether an abuse of discretion has occurred at sentencing the trial court is required to articulate on the record reasons for imposing a particular sentence
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: — affects the FDIC’s ability to function as receiver in the case. The “disposition of a failed [bank’s] assets ... is one of the quintessential statutory powers of the [FDIC] as a receiver.” Pyramid Constr. Co. v. Wind River Petroleum, Inc., 866 F.Supp. 513, 517 (D.Utah 1994). If an asset sold to a third-party purchaser is subject to dilution in a later judicial proceeding, there would be a substantial chilling effect upon the receiver’s ability to perform its statutory functions. In Pyramid, the court rejected the argument that § 1821(j) did not apply because a plaintiff sought relief against the receiver’s successor. The plaintiffs argument in Pyramid sounded much like Dittmer’s here — because the receiver had alread 4, 1993 WL 149084, at *2 (N.D.Cal. April 30, 1993) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Of the many cases Dittmer cites in support of Options: A. recognizing claim against bank receiver B. holding that the antiinjunction act barred the court from enjoining eviction proceedings in the suffolk county district court fifth district because the court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claims under the real estate settlement procedures act C. holding that a failure to comply with the foreclosure statutes invalidates a foreclosure sale D. holding that a bank receiver by filing a claim permits challenge to the secured portion of its claim E. holding that 1821 barred a claim to enjoin a bank and its trustee from conducting a foreclosure sale because enjoining these parties indirectly enjoins the receiver which a district court has no power to do

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 1821 barred a claim to enjoin a bank and its trustee from conducting a foreclosure sale because enjoining these parties indirectly enjoins the receiver which a district court has no power to do
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: he would have had to carry the rifle with the intent to go armed. [The] warrant ... does not contain facts stating that [he] intended to go armed. Thus, he is factually innocent. This issue as framed brings to mind interesting issues such as whether the claim is justiciable in a post-conviction proceeding, see Dellinger v. State, 279 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Tenn.2009) (noting that the justiciability of free-standing actual innocence claims as part of a collateral attack was “ ‘left open’ and ‘unresolved’ ” in the wake of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S.Ct. 853, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (quoting House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 554-55, 126 S.Ct. 2064, 165 L.Ed.2d 1 (2006))), and whether the otherwise valid guilty plea on weapon possession foreclosed the claim, see Pettus, 986 S.W.2d at 542 (<HOLDING>). We do not address these issues, however, Options: A. holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge B. holding that the voluntary entry of an informed and counseled guilty plea constitutes an admission of all facts necessary to convict C. holding entry of guilty plea waives challenges to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea emphasis added D. recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea E. holding that a plea of guilty is an admission of all material facts alleged in the charge including those facts that serve as factual predicates to subject matter jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the voluntary entry of an informed and counseled guilty plea constitutes an admission of all facts necessary to convict
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: lead levels, from which “a jury could reasonably infer that if [defendant’s property] was not contributing source [of lead exposure,]” plaintiffs blood lead levels would have decreased while living at that property). And, of course, a plaintiff who overcomes summary judgment still bears the burden of proof as to the element of causation at trial, where expert opinion can play a critical role in persuading a jury. The standard for admissibility of expert testimony as to source causation is thus a vital one in lead paint actions. The Majority holds today that an expert who gives an opinion that a defendant’s property caused a plaintiffs harm does not need to show or explain that other reasonably probable sources did not cause the plaintiffs harm. Majority Op. at 250-51, 164 A.3d at 238 (<HOLDING>) The Majority’s removal of the requirement that Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify B. holding that an expert is not competent to testify as to statutory interpretation C. holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard D. holding that it is not the rule that a source causation expert in a lead paint action must exclude other properties before he can testify that the plaintiff was exposed to lead at the subject property E. recognizing that a plaintiff must produce a medical expert to testify as to causation in all but the most selfevident medical malpractice actions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it is not the rule that a source causation expert in a lead paint action must exclude other properties before he can testify that the plaintiff was exposed to lead at the subject property
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts and any Party may execute any such counterpart, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall become binding when one or more counterparts taken together shall have been executed and delivered by the Parties by facsimile transmission, PDF or otherwise.

assistant: Counterparts
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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are not subject to that provision , you agree that you will resolve any claim you have with us relating to , arising out of , or in any way in connection with our terms and policies , us , or our services ( each , a `` dispute '' and together , `` disputes '' ) exclusively in the united states district court for the northern district of california or a state court located in santa clara county in california , and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such disputes .

assistant: Jurisdiction
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: Neither this Note nor the proceeds hereof shall be assignable by the Borrower without the Lender’s prior written consent, and any attempted assignment without the Lender’s prior written consent shall create a default under this Note. This Note may be assigned, in whole or in part, by the Lender and its successors or assigns. The Borrower’s consent shall not be required for any such assignment.

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: Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, all indemnification payments required to be made under this Agreement shall be made within 20 days of the date of receipt by the indemnifying party of written notice of the amount owed, together with reasonable documentation showing the basis for the calculation of such amount and evidence of payment of such amount by the indemnified party.

assistant: Payments
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 email attachment at the email address as 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 email attachment at the email address as 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 (2 nd ) 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 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: By its signature, each Person executing this Agreement on behalf of a party hereto represents and warrants to the other parties hereto that it is duly authorized to execute this Agreement. The First Lien Collateral Agent represents and warrants that this Agreement is binding upon the Credit Agreement Secured Parties. The Initial Additional Agent represents and warrants that this Agreement is binding upon the Initial Additional First Lien Secured Parties.

assistant: Authorizations
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 shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by Employee's heirs and beneficiaries. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Company and its respective successors, purchasers and assigns.

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: This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the parties hereby unconditionally and irrevocably waive and release any claim that the law of any other jurisdiction governs this Amendment and this Amendment shall be governed and construed with the laws of the State of Delaware.

assistant: Governing Laws
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 person who is or has been a member of the Committee or the Board, and any individual or individuals to whom the Committee has delegated authority under Article 2 of the Plan, will be indemnified and held harmless by the Corporation and its Affiliates from and against any loss, cost, liability, or expense that may be imposed upon or reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with or as a result of any claim, action, suit or proceeding to which he or she may be a party or in which he or she may be involved by reason of any action taken, or failure to act, under the Plan to the extent permitted by State law. Each such person will also be indemnified and held harmless by the Corporation and its Affiliates from and against any and all amounts paid by him or her in a settlement approved by the Corporation, or paid by him or her in satisfaction of any judgment, of or in a claim, action, suit or proceeding against him or her and described in the previous sentence, so long as he or she gives the Corporation an opportunity, at its own expense, to handle and defend the claim, action, suit or proceeding before he or she undertakes to handle and defend it. The foregoing right of indemnification will not be exclusive of any other rights of indemnification to which a person who is or has been a member of the Committee or the Board may be entitled under the Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws, as a matter of law, or otherwise, or any power that the Corporation may have to indemnify him or her or hold him or her harmless.

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 notice or other communication under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be effective upon hand delivery; upon fax transmission to either party at the number provided below for that party, but only upon receipt by the transmitting party of a written confirmation of receipt; or three (3) business days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, and addressed to the Company at 15301 Dallas Parkway, Suite 500, Addison, Texas 75001, (Attention: Mr. Robert Michelson, President and Chief Executive Officer) or to Optionee at the address set forth on the front page hereof. Each party is obligated to notify the other in writing of any change in address. Notice of change of address shall be effective only when done in accordance with this section.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Bluemink, 511 F.2d 399, 404 (D.C.Cir.1974), (stating that section 2676 “provides that a judgment against the United States shall operate as a bar to any action against the individual employee, but that section proscribes a double recovery, not a suit against the against the individual employee in the first instance”); Engle v. Mecke, 24 F.3d 133, 134 (10th Cir.19 h Cir.2008) (FTCA judgment in government’s favor barred Bivens claim arising from same occurrence pursuant to FTCA’s judgment bar, even though both claims were raised in same lawsuit); Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir.2005) (finding judgment entered on the merits in favor of government on FTCA claim barred Bivens claim against arresting federal agents); Accord Arevalo v. Woods, 811 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Serra v. Pichardo, 786 F.2d 237 (6th Options: A. holding that plaintiffs in the absence of a contrary expression from congress shall have an action under ftca against the united states as well as a bivens action against the individual officials alleged to have infringed their constitutional rights B. holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official C. holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government D. holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government E. holding that a bivens claim cannot be brought against a federal agency

assistant: The best answer is D. holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government
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: negotiations, and that the parties never actually entered into a contract (or, if they did enter a contract, it is unclear what that contract really included). However, there is much evidence that, except for slight alterations in the dollar amounts, the proposal was Gallagher’s offer and the Diocese agreed to it; there is really no material proof to the contrary. To win a reversal on this point, Gallagher must demonstrate a jury question on the following: that sometime after Gallagher presented the plan to the Diocese and before the Diocese agreed to it (with a few changes in dollar amounts), Gallagher withdrew its hen there is no meeting of the minds regarding the modification, such as when the parties did not discuss or agree to the change. See Williams Eng’g, 480 So.2d at 776 (<HOLDING>). The issue, then, becomes whether the Diocese Options: A. holding that because there was no discussion or agreement regarding change in engineers method of providing cost estimates to company that hired him there was no meeting of the minds and thus no modification as to how the engineer should provide cost estimates B. holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable C. holding that there was no meeting of the minds as to expenses in the parties contingency fee contract and therefore the attorneys claim for reimbursement of litigation expenses was rejected D. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify E. holding that there was no abuse of discretion for denying the motion to change venue because although there had been some publicity surrounding the murder an independent review of the record demonstrates that there was no difficulty in seating the jury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because there was no discussion or agreement regarding change in engineers method of providing cost estimates to company that hired him there was no meeting of the minds and thus no modification as to how the engineer should provide cost estimates
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: Santos Eusebio Pizano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Pizano has not established any error in the agency’s determination that his conviction under California Penal Code § 530.5(c)(1) is categorically a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because it requires proof of an “intent to defraud” as an element of the crime. See Espino-Castillo, 770 F.3d at 863-64 (<HOLDING>) (alterations, citations, and quotation marks Options: A. holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude B. recognizing that a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude internal quotation marks omitted C. recognizing the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude and a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude D. holding that involuntary manslaughter defined either as reckless or negligent was not a crime of moral turpitude because itwas based on unintentional conduct in contrast to those crimes involving some form of evil intent it is not an offense that is mala in se and thus does not fall within the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude E. holding that missouris reckless conduct statute establishes a crime involving moral turpitude

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the longstanding rule that crimes that have fraud as an element are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude and a court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves moral turpitude
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: in contrast, is an inherent value not established by market forces, but based upon sentimental or personal value. Ford Motor Co., 125 S.W.3d at 799. The only evidence as to the fair market value of the house as received with the 625 square foot shortage was the appraisal that reflected a value greater than the value represented. Matheus offered no expert testimony that the fair market value of the house with the shortage was less than the value as represented to him. Matheus, himself, testified only as to the amount he pr r’s opinion that vehicle’s value was “worthless” as “unsafe for what I want it for” affirmatively showed opinion based on personal value to him and constituted no evidence); Pontiac v. Elliott, 775 S.W.2d 395, 398-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we note that the supreme court Options: A. holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value B. holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition C. holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented D. holding that testimony by the owners expert to the value of trees on appropriated property was properly admitted to rebut or impeach testimony by the appropriating agencys expert that the trees had no value in terms of their effect on the propertys market value E. holding owners testimony as to autos value as nothing as she could not depend on it or sell it referred to intrinsic value of vehicle to her and constituted no evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding owners testimony as to autos value as nothing as she could not depend on it or sell it referred to intrinsic value of vehicle to her and constituted no evidence
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: U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction on multiple counts of bank robbery. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Downing contends that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated at sentencing because the district court sentenced him as a career offender on facts neither charged in the indictment nor proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Downing’s request for retroactive application of Booker and Blakely is foreclosed by United States v. Cruz, 423 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that rule announced in mcconnell applies retroactively B. holding that the rule announced by booker does not operate retroactively C. holding booker is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review D. holding that booker does not apply retroactively to collateral proceedings under 2255 E. holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the rule announced by booker does not operate retroactively
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: without their permission. Bums Librarian O'Neill states in his affidavit that "[h]ad the assurances of confidentiality not been made, it is doubtful that any paramilitary would have participated in this oral history project. Their stories would have died with them, and an opportunity to document and preserve a critical part of the historical record would have been lost forever.” 27 . Appellants’ intervention complaint raised the same claims as their separate civil complaint. We have affirmed that there is no cause of action under the treaty and under the Constitution, so there is no need for us to consider whether the district court acted within its discretion in denying appellants' motion to intervene. Cf. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 708 F.2d 1571, 1575 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 28 . Appellants also claim that the Attorney Options: A. holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed B. holding that a denial of qualified immunity on the law is collateral to the merits of the underlying action and is therefore considered final for appellate purposes C. holding that the district courts error was however harmless in light of other considerations D. holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence E. holding that the district courts denial of a petition to intervene was harmless error because the merits of the appellants claim were eventually considered on appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district courts denial of a petition to intervene was harmless error because the merits of the appellants claim were eventually considered on appeal