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: 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.1988)); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir.1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented for review.”); Meehan v. County of L.A, 856 F.2d 102, 105 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988) (deeming an issue abandoned due to the party’s failure to brief it). We have confirmed that, in the immigration context, an alien does not preserve a claim where the alien references an issue in his opening brief — and even indicates that he will present argument on the subject — but does not discuss the claim in the argument section. See Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961, 967 (9th Cir.2006); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The majority asserts that “we need not decide Options: A. holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue B. holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue C. holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue D. holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief E. holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the petitioners failure to address an issue in the argument portion of his opening brief waived the issue
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: with the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe, no such agreement had been reached at the time Stephan executed the search warrants. Furthermore, the governor did not announce the Kickapoo tribe compact until July 2, 1991 — two weeks after Stephan participated in the search at Kaul’s store— and apparently excluded Stephan from the negotiations leading to the agreement. Therefore, Kaul has presented no evidence from which we can conclude that the governor ordered Stephan not to enforce the Kansas tax statutes against Indian retailers on the Reservation at the time the search warrants were executed. Because Kaul has failed to prove that K.S.A. § 79-3615(g) and K.S.A. § 79-3321(a) exempt Indian retailers, Stephan did not violate Kaul’s Fourth Amendment rights by applying for the Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Kaul argues that despite the Kansas Act’s Options: A. holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation B. holding that county law enforcement officers lacked jurisdiction to arrest indian at ballpark located on indian trust land C. holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country D. holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation E. holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws including the execution of a search warrant unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country
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: Subject to Section 3.7 , each party to this Agreement, by its execution hereof, hereby irrevocably: (i) submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware or, if but only if such Court declines jurisdiction, the Superior Court of the State of Delaware or the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, for the purpose of litigating any action, proceeding or suit (at law or in equity, in contract, tort or otherwise) arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the subject matter hereof, (ii) waives and agrees not to assert, by way of motion, as a defense or otherwise, in any such action, proceeding or suit, any claim that it is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of the above-named courts, that its property is exempt or immune from attachment or execution, that any such action, proceeding or suit brought in one of the above-named courts is improperly venued, or that this Agreement or the subject matter of this Agreement may not be enforced in or by such court, (iii) agrees not to commence any such action, proceeding or suit other than before one of the above-named courts nor to make any motion or take any other action seeking or intending to cause the transfer or removal of any such action, proceeding or suit to any court other than (subject to clause (i) above) one of the above-named courts whether on the grounds of inconvenient forum or otherwise, or to seek to stay or dismiss any such action, proceeding or suit in favor of any proceeding in any other forum and (iv) consents to service of process in any such action, proceeding or suit in any manner permitted by applicable law, or by delivery to it by an overnight courier service recognized in the United States and guaranteeing overnight delivery at its address specified pursuant to Section 15.5 , and agrees that such service of process in any such action, proceeding or suit shall be good and sufficient. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a party may commence an action, proceeding or suit in any jurisdiction to enforce an order or judgment of one of the above-named courts.

assistant: Consent 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: in Griffin in one or the other of the following respects: It either prohibits inviting the jury to do what the jury is perfectly entitled to do; or it requires the jury to do what is practically impossible. [Id. at 68, 120 S.Ct at 1124, 146 L.Ed.2d at 55 (footnoteq omitted).] Ultimately, the Court concluded that a prosecutor may accuse a defendant of tailoring based on trial presence because such com- merits are “appropriate” and “sometimes essential [ ] to the central function of the trial, which is to discover the truth.” Id. at 73, 120 S.Ct. at 1127, 146 L.Ed.2d at 59. Our appellate case law has, for decades, conformed to the Portuondo approach and permitted the kind of accusations allowed in that case. See State v. Buscham, 360 N.J.Super. 346, 366, 823 A.2d 71 (App.Div.2003) (<HOLDING>). In State v. Robinson, 157 N.J.Super. 118, Options: A. holding prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain error B. holding that a trial judges decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of a witness without making the requisite casespecific findings of fact was reversible error C. holding that prosecutors reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error D. holding that prosecutors reference to code of silence among witnesses to shooting not plain error where argument finds support in record E. holding that prosecutors reference to cooperation agreements with government witnesses was not plain error

assistant: The best answer is A. holding prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain 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: for and admissibility of expert testimony are matters to be determined within the sound exercise of discretion by the trial court. Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 414, 548 A.2d 1022. Reported opinions in New Jersey have not previously addressed the specific question whether expert testimony explaining the modus operandi of drug dealers should be admissible in the prosecution of drug-distribution offenses. The general rule in the federal courts favors admissibility of such evidence. “Federal courts often permit experts to testify on narcotics operations because jurors are commonly unfamiliar with the methods by which drug dealers attempt to conceal their activities.” United States v. Dunn, 846 F.2d 761, 763 (D.C.Cir.1988); see, e.g., United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 628-29 (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, Options: A. holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible B. holding admissible expert testimony that identified seller runner and holder in hypothetical drug transaction that replicated governments trial proof C. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade D. holding that vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical can constitute substantial evidence of residual functional capacity E. holding that unknowing drug courier testimony was admissible in a complex drug importation case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding admissible expert testimony that identified seller runner and holder in hypothetical drug transaction that replicated governments trial proof
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 payments to be made by the Borrower shall be made without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by the Borrower hereunder shall be made to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the Administrative Agent’s Office in Dollars and in immediately available funds not later than 2:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. The Administrative Agent will promptly distribute to each Lender its Applicable Percentage in respect of the relevant Facility (or other applicable share as provided herein) of such payment in like funds as received by wire transfer to such Lender’s Lending Office. All payments received by the Administrative Agent after 2:00 p.m. shall be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee shall continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by the Borrower shall come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment shall be made on the next following Business Day, and such extension of time shall be reflected on computing interest or fees, as the case may be.

assistant: General
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 helpful information. Testimony at the evidentiary hearing corroborated Cashman’s concern that Ash-ton would have used the MMPI results to portray Kimbrough in a bad light. The court concluded that counsel’s decision not to call Dr. Mings or Dr. Berland as witnesses was a reasonable trial tactic. We agree with the trial court. Cashman and Sims weighed the mitigation evidence Mings and Berland could have presented against the potential risks of having them testify. The strategic decision Cashman and Sims made not to have Mings and Berland testify at trial was a reasonable trial tactic and did not constitute deficient performance. See Griffin v. State, 866 So.2d 1, 9 (Fla.2003) (citing Ferguson v. State, 593 So.2d 508 (Fla.1992), and State v. Bolender, 503 So.2d 1247, 1250 (Fla.1987) (<HOLDING>)). 2. Failure to Provide Doctors With Options: A. holding that the failure to raise a futile issue does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record C. holding that counsels strategic decisions were hard to attack D. holding that there is no ineffective assistance if an attorney makes a strategic choice to pursue one defense and abandons a conflicting defense E. holding that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance if alternative courses of action have been considered and rejected
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 (including Schedule 1 annexed hereto) constitutes the entire and exclusive agreement and understanding between the parties regarding the specific subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements relating to its specific subject matter. The terms of this Agreement may not be changed orally and are deemed an enforceable contract and not a mere recital. With the exception of any court-ordered reformation pursuant to Section 8.4, no modification of, or amendment to, this Agreement, nor any waiver of any rights under this Agreement, shall be effective unless in writing and signed by both the Company and the Employee. Any subsequent changes in the Employee’s duties, compensation or other terms and conditions of employment shall not affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: b. to the extent necessary to provide the services to you and others , to protect you and the services , and to improve microsoft products and services , you grant to microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use your content , for example , to make copies of , retain , transmit , reformat , display , and distribute via communication tools your content on the services .

assistant: None
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 Company shall not sell, offer for sale or solicit offers to buy or otherwise negotiate in respect of any security (as defined in Section 2 of the Securities Act) that would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Securities in a manner that would require the registration under the Securities Act of the sale or resale of the Securities.

assistant: Integration
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: first issue, the Saadats argue that the trial court erred in holding them personally liable for the Sabine Pilot violation. Naifeh argues, and the trial court agreed, that in a corporate setting, individuals can be personally liable for their own torts, including wrongful discharge under Sabine Pilot. We review a trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex.2002). Texas is an employment at will state, meaning that employment contracts can be terminated at will by either party unless they have bargained otherwise. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Dutschmann, 846 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex.1993); see also Armijo v. Mazda Int’l, No. 14-03-00365-CV, 2004 WL 1175335, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 27, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). The one common-law exception to the Options: A. holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party B. holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated C. holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will D. holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract E. holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an employment at will agreement is an enforceable contract until terminated by either party
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: 27 Va.App. 505, 509-10, 500 S.E.2d 233, 235 (1998) (stating that “fact finder is entitled to disbelieve the self-serving testimony of the accused and to conclude that the accused is lying to conceal his guilt”). The defendant’s admitted ownership of some of the implements and William Hagy’s statement of ownership with the defendant of the two crowbars and pliers in the cargo area provided sufficient evidence for the fact finder to conclude that the defendant and William Hagy exercised joint dominion and control over those tools found throughout the car. See Carter v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 317, 323, 163 S.E.2d 589, 594 (1968) (stating that “exclusive possession includes joint possession by two or more persons”); Archer v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 1, 13, 492 S.E.2d 826, 832 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Josephs v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 87, Options: A. holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun B. holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack C. holding sufficient connection or nexus existed between the defendant and a gun in a case of nonexclusive possession because the gun was found under the defendants seat was visible and retrievable by defendant and a magazine of ammunition was hidden in the seat cover D. holding that it was error to admit into evidence a gun purchased by the defendant which was not connected with the charged crimes E. holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun
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 required by the provisions of this Certificate to be given to the holders of Series B Preferred Stock shall be deemed given if deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, with a nationally recognized overnight courier, or personally delivered, and addressed to each holder of record at such holder’s address appearing on the books of the Corporation.

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 and the other Loan Documents shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and thereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that the Borrower may not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder or thereunder 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 subsection (b) of this Section, (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this Section or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of subsection (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 subsection (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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall automatically terminate, and no party shall have any rights or obligations hereunder and this Agreement shall become null and void and have no further force or effect with no liability on the part of any party hereto upon the earliest to occur of (a) the Closing, (b) the valid termination of the Master Combination Agreement in accordance with its terms and (c) at the option of any Stockholder, the execution or granting of any amendment, modification, change or waiver with respect to the Master Combination Agreement subsequent to the date of this Agreement without the consent of such Stockholder that (1) results in any material increase or material change in the form of any consideration paid thereunder by Giants, the Operating Partnership or their respective subsidiaries or (2) results in a material change in the property or assets contributed to, or in the businesses being merged into, Giants, the Operating Partnership or their respective subsidiaries not otherwise contemplated by the Master Combination Agreement in effect on the date hereof (any such date shall be referred to herein as the “ Termination Date ”). Nothing in this Section 5 shall relieve any party of liability for breach of this Agreement prior to the termination of this Agreement pursuant to its terms.

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 Escrow Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Escrow Agreement by facsimile or scanned pages shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart to this Escrow Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless otherwise provided, any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed effectively given upon personal delivery to the party to be notified, the following business day after deposit with a reputable overnight courier service or three (3) business days after deposit with the United States Post Office, by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the party to be notified at the address indicated below, or at such other address as such party may designate by ten (10) days’ advance written notice to the other party.

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: order that there is no just reason for delay, it may direct in the order the entry of a final judgment: (1) as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties[.] 6 . Assuming, arguendo, that the circuit court intended.to — and did— dismiss the entire action, that ruling would have been erroneous. Md. Rule 2-213 provides: Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. So long as one of the original plaintiffs and one of the original defendants remain as parties to the action, parties may be dropped ... by order of the court on motion of any party.... Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately. Severance rather than dismissal is the appropriate remedy for misjoinder when, as here, the appellants and the Asbestos Defe .Y.1993) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So.2d 704 (Ala. 1987) Options: A. holding on policy grounds that a strict liability claim should not lie against drug manufacturer B. holding joinder of two defendants was proper where plaintiffs filed a products liability claim against general motors and a negligent roadway design claim against a local government for injuries caused by an automobile accident C. holding that despite a jury verdict against the insured hospital for medical malpractice liability was not beyond dispute D. holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug E. holding defendant made motive issue in drug conspiracy prosecution by advancing theory he was conducting investigation of drug dealing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug
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 Loan Party has the corporate power and authority to make, deliver and perform the Loan Documents to which it is a party and, in the case of the Borrower, to borrow or have Letters of Credit issued hereunder. Each Loan Party has taken all necessary corporate or other action to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of the Loan Documents to which it is a party and, in the case of the Borrower, to authorize the extensions of credit on the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

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: During the Employment Term, Ascena shall pay Executive a base salary at the annual rate of $1,000,000 per year or such higher rate as may be determined from time to time by the Board or a Compensation Committee of the Board (“ Base Salary ”). Such Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with Ascena’s standard payroll practices for senior executives.

assistant: Base Salary
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: Immediately before and after giving effect to the making of each Advance and the issuance, increase, or amendment of each Letter of Credit, the Parent and its consolidated Subsidiaries are, when taken as a whole, Solvent.

assistant: Solvency
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 Act against Winnebago Tribe and the individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that even if HCI is a “distributor of first receipt” as defined by the Act, defendants are powerless to enforce the Act against them due to tribal and official sovereign immunity. Plaintiff Winnebago Tribe maintains that Indian tribes retain sovereign immunity from suit absent either an explicit waiver of immunity or express authorization of the suit by Congress. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). This immunity extends to activities off the reservation. See Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). See also Aircraft Equip. Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 975 P.2d 450 (Okla.1998) (<HOLDING>). The individual plaintiffs further argue that Options: A. holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity B. holding that seizure of tribal property is barred by sovereign immunity after the supreme courts ruling in manufacturing technologies C. holding that liability for depreciation would constitute consequential damages barred by sovereign immunity where government did not benefit from property that lost value during seizure period D. holding inverse condemnation action not barred by sovereign immunity E. holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that seizure of tribal property is barred by sovereign immunity after the supreme courts ruling in manufacturing technologies
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 notices, requests and demands to or upon the Collateral Agent or any Granting Party hereunder shall be effected in the manner provided for in Section 11.2 of the Credit Agreement; provided that any such notice, request or demand to or upon any Guarantor shall be addressed to such Guarantor at its notice address set forth on Schedule 1 , unless and until such Guarantor shall change such address by notice to the Collateral Agent and the Administrative Agent given in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Credit Agreement.

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: Notices and communications under this Certificate must be in writing and either personally delivered or sent by registered or certified United States mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. Notices to the Company must be addressed to Roper Technologies, Inc., 6901 Professional Parkway East, Suite 200, Sarasota, Florida 34240, Attn: Secretary, or any other address designated by the Company in a written notice to Optionee. Notices to Optionee will be directed to the address of Optionee then currently on file with the Company, or at any other address given by Optionee in a written notice to the Company.

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: process that would reflect a lower cost than others ” (emphasis added)). The harm BBSSI will suffer outweighs the harm to defendant and to CMR. 4. Whether Injunctive Relief Is in the Public Interest BBSSI asserts that “Safeguarding the integrity of the procurement process is a matter of high public interest that is best served by enjoining arbitrary and capricious agency action, or action generally inconsistent with procurement law and regulations.” Pl.’s Mot. 31. Defendant describes the “detrimental impact” upon the military as “severe” if injunctive relief is awarded, noting that there exists a strong public interest in not interfering with an agency’s procurement process. Def.’s Mot. 31. CMR argues that the public interest is not served “by issuing contrac Fed.Cl. 431, 434 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The public interest was compromised by the Options: A. recognizing the publics interest in receiving the best value in public services B. recognizing the publics interest in ensuring that the ultimate awardee offers the best value to the government pursuant to the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement regulations C. recognizing the public interest exception D. holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard E. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the publics interest in receiving the best value in public services
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: rovio , rovio 's licensors and channel partners do not make , and hereby disclaim , any and all express , implied or statutory warranties , including implied warranties of condition , uninterrupted use , accuracy of data ( including but not limited to location data ) , merchantability , satisfactory quality , fitness for a particular purpose , noninfringement of third party rights , and warranties ( if any ) arising from a course of dealing , usage , or trade practice .

assistant: None
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) THIS GUARANTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Guaranty may be brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in New York County or of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, and, by execution and delivery of this Guaranty, each party hereto hereby irrevocably accepts for itself and in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts. Each party to this Guaranty irrevocably consents to service of process in the manner provided for notices in Section 14 . Each Foreign Subsidiary party to this Guaranty hereby irrevocably appoints Holdings, the Company or such other Domestic Subsidiary of the Parent identified to the Administrative Agent in writing from time to time as its agent for service of process in relation to any proceedings before the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in New York County, the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York or any appellate court from any thereof in connection with any Loan Document and such Person, to the extent it is a party hereto hereby accepts such appointment. Each party to this Guaranty hereby irrevocably waives any objection to such service of process and further irrevocably waives and agrees not to plead or claim in any action or proceeding commenced hereunder or under any other Loan Document to which such Person is a party that such service of process was in any way invalid or ineffective. Nothing herein shall affect the right of any party to this Guaranty to serve process in any other manner permitted by law or to commence legal proceedings or otherwise proceed against any other party hereto in any other jurisdiction.

assistant: Consent 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall keep, or cause to be kept, appropriate books and records with respect to the Company’s business, including all books and records necessary to provide any information, lists and copies of documents required to be provided pursuant to the Delaware Act and other applicable laws. Any holder of at least ten percent of the then-outstanding Units shall be entitled to full access to the Company’s books and records at any time during normal business hours. All matters concerning (a) the determination of the relative amount of allocations and distributions among the Members pursuant to Articles V and VI , and (b) accounting procedures and determinations, and other determinations not specifically and expressly provided for by the terms of this Agreement, shall be determined by the Board, whose determination shall be final and conclusive as to all of the Members absent manifest clerical error.

assistant: Records
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: 154 F.3d 1129, 1132 (10th Cir.1998) (quotations and citations omitted). As a general rule, the grids may not be used conclusively if the claimant has nonexertional impairments that limit the ability to do the full range of work within a classification. See Thompson v. Sullivan, 987 F.2d 1482, 1488 (10th Cir.1993); see also 20 C.F .R. § 404.1569a(c)(2) (stating that “[i]f your impairment(s) and related symptoms, such as pain, only affect your ability to perform the nonexertional aspects of work-related activities, the [grids] do not direct factual conclusions of disabled or not disabled”). However, they may be used to direct a conclusion if the claimant’s nonexertional impairments do not significantly reduce the underlying job base. See Evans v. Chater, 55 F.3d 530, 532 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). This is because only significant Options: A. holding that the record should contain evidence that the employee had demonstrated an ability to perform adequately B. holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs C. recognizing the majority rule D. holding that the ability to perform a substantial majority of work in rfc assessment suffices for purposes of grids E. holding that application of the grids is inappropriate if a claimant suffers from nonexertional impairments which diminish his or her ability to perform a full range of work

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the ability to perform a substantial majority of work in rfc assessment suffices for purposes of grids
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: To the knowledge of the Company and its officers, the Company is and at all times has been in full compliance with all Laws. The Company has not received any notice that it is in violation of, has violated, or is under investigation with respect to, or has been threatened to be charged with, any violation of any Law.

assistant: Compliance With 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: This Agreement and any amendments, waivers, consents, or supplements hereto or in connection herewith may be executed in multiple counterparts (including by means of telecopied or electronically transmitted signature pages), all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Debtor will maintain good and indefeasible title to the Collateral free and clear of all liens, security interests, encumbrances or adverse claims, except for Permitted Encumbrances. Debtor will cause any financing statement or other security instrument with respect to the Collateral to be terminated, except for Permitted Encumbrances and the filing of Debtor as buyer against a Seller as seller. Debtor will defend at its expense Lender’s right, title and security interest in and to the Collateral against the claims of any third party.

assistant: Liens
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 Company will, and will cause each of the Subsidiaries to, (a) keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and (b) maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations.

assistant: Insurances
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment by facsimile or any other electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart thereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: rejected'this argument, holding that the allegations, even if true, did not amount to an -IDEA procedural violation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 et seq. (setting forth the procedural safeguards afforded to parents when their child is in special education). 13 . It is worth noting that at least one state— Massachusetts, as the IDEA permits, has enacted a more stringent standard. Specifically, children in Massachusetts who are eligible for special education services are entitled to IEPs that provide for their “maximum possible development.'' See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71B § 2 (emphasis added); Frank S. v. School Committee of the Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District, 26 F.Supp.2d 219, 226 (D.Mass.1998). 14 . See Springer v. Fairfax County School Board, 134 F.3d 659, 663 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (citing Hartmann v. Loudoun County, 118 F.3d Options: A. holding that absent some statutory infraction the task of education belongs to the educators who have been charged by society with that critical task B. holding that the critical vendor order was not a defense because it permitted rather than mandated payment of prepetition claims of critical vendors C. holding that since the performer of a task which could be performed by a layperson represented that he was in fact a professional engineer krs 413245 applied D. holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity E. holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that absent some statutory infraction the task of education belongs to the educators who have been charged by society with that critical task
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: the portion of the statute under which Balderas-Rubio was convicted now corresponds to subsection (A)(4). For ease of explanation, we will hereinafter refer to this portion of the statute as “Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1123(A)(4).” 3 . The district court provided little analysis for its determination that Balderas-Rubio's prior conviction was a crime of violence, and it is therefore unclear how the district court arrived at that determination. But to the extent the district court based its determination solely on the description of Balderas-Rubio’s conduct set forth in the bill of information, without first examining the conduct proscribed by Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1123, the district court's analysis was flawed. See, e.g., United States v. Torres-Diaz, 438 F.3d 529, 534-37 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The government’s assertion that Options: A. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted B. holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction C. recognizing that a court may look to the charging document in making a crime of violence determination but only where the statute provides disjunctive methods of committing the offense and the court needs to determine which of the statutory alternatives is involved in the particular case D. recognizing that courts may look beyond the statutory text to determine legislative intent only when the statute is ambiguous E. holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that a court may look to the charging document in making a crime of violence determination but only where the statute provides disjunctive methods of committing the offense and the court needs to determine which of the statutory alternatives is involved in the particular case