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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, EACH SUCH PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LEGAL ACTION ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER IN THE EVENT OF A LEGAL ACTION, (B) SUCH PARTY HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER, (C) SUCH PARTY MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY, AND (D) SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 15 .

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: or could have been raised in the action. Wise v. Tucker, 399 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). To apply the doctrine there must be (1) identity in the thing sued for, (2) identity of the causes of action, (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity of the person for or against whom the claim is made. See Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this case, the parties are the same, the same landlord is suing the same lessee, but the identity of the thing sued for is different: JPAY II seeks damages for a completely different set of monthly rents that had yet to accrue at the time the judgment in JPAY I was rendered. Those damages were not included in JPAY I judgment. See Gilbert v. Florida Power & Light Co., 981 So.2d 609, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Greene v. Boyette, 587 So.2d 629, Options: A. holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal B. recognizing the cause of action C. holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit D. recognizing cause of action E. holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 369 U.S. 656 82 S.Ct. 992 8 L.Ed.2d 178 Pearl Raymond MATTOXv.B. C. SACKS. No. Misc. 584. Decided May 14, 1962. Pearl Raymond Mattox, pro se. Mark McElroy, Atty. Gen. of Ohio, and Aubrey A. Wendt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner was convicted in an Ohio state court of assault with intent to kill and of cutting with intent to kill, wound or main the same person. He immediately sought a writ of habeas corpus which was denied on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy. He then attempted to appeal but this was denied as out of time and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed this denial. He unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus twice more, the latest petition being to the Supreme Court of Ohio and alleging, among other matters, a denial of counsel at his trial and a deprivation of rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus was not a substitute for appeal and was not available to remedy the defects alleged by petitioner. Petitioner now seeks our writ of certiorari to review that ruling. 2 The petition for certiorari must be denied. The decision below and the several prior actions in the Ohio courts indicate that petitioner is without a state remedy to challenge his conviction upon the federal constitutional grounds asserted. In these circumstances, Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 208, 70 S.Ct. 587, 592, 94 L.Ed. 761, is not applicable and a prisoner may, without first seeking certiorari here, file his application for habeas corpus in the appropriate United States District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Massey v. Moore, 348 U.S. 105, 75 S.Ct. 145, 99 L.Ed. 135; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541. Petitioner's allegations, if true, would present serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment, and those allegations would therefore entitle him to a hearing. Massey v. Moore, supra; Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U.S. 116, 76 S.Ct. 223, 100 L.Ed. 126. 3 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 1
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: conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 464, 98 S.Ct. 2864, 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978); accord Watson Carpet & Floor Covering, Inc. v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 648 F.3d 452, 460 (6th Cir. 2011); In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 616 (7th Cir.1997). Even where a member of the conspiracy appears to sever ties with other co-conspirators, there is no withdrawal if that member continues to support or benefit from the agreement. See United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 269 (2d Cir.1992) (finding no withdrawal from conspiracy where defendant resigned from corrupt firm but continued to receive a portion of profits); United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 583 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, Smith v. Berg, Options: A. holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators B. holding that resignation from conspiracy is insufficient if the defendant continues to do acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and continues to receive benefits from the conspiracys operations C. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy D. holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy E. holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that resignation from conspiracy is insufficient if the defendant continues to do acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and continues to receive benefits from the conspiracys operations
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 comply with the laws (including any fictitious or trade name statute), regulations, and orders of any government body with authority over the Borrower’s business. The Bank shall have no obligation to make any advance to the Borrower except in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and the Borrower shall fully cooperate with the Bank in complying with all such applicable laws and restrictions.

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: Each participant who has received Performance Shares shall, upon notification of the amount due, pay to the Company in cash or by check amounts necessary to satisfy any applicable federal, state and local tax withholding requirements. If the participant fails to pay the amount demanded, the Company or the Employer may withhold that amount from other amounts payable to the participant, including salary, subject to applicable law. With the consent of the Board of Directors, a participant may satisfy this obligation, in whole or in part, by instructing the Company to withhold from any shares to be issued or by delivering to the Company other shares of Common Stock; provided, however, that the number of shares so delivered or withheld shall not exceed the minimum amount necessary to satisfy the required withholding obligation.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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: available, citing both the Hernandez and Boatland cases. Indeed, because product liability claimants must prove a safer “alternative” design, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 82.005, it would be absurd to limit discovery to the specific model at issue because that would necessarily preclude discovery on alternativ 4-R, 2007 WL 2712925, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67973, at *15 (W.D.Ky.2007) (order) (“Information concerning prior models of GM U-Vans would remain relevant to issues of defect, notice of defect and GM’s possible failure to respond to an alleged defect; whereas, discovery of information related to later models would remain relevant to reasonable alternative designs and them performance.”); Mann ex rel. Akst v. Cooper Tire Co., 33 A.D.3d 24, 816 N.Y.S.2d 45, 55 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 230 Options: A. holding that scope of discovery in tread separation case should include documents relating generally to the tread separation defect or problem because otherwise the defendant would not produce documents probative on the issues of notice defectiveness and dangerousness B. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable C. recognizing separation of powers doctrine D. holding that the agency did not have an obligation to search for and produce the documents the plaintiff claimed entitlement to because the plaintiffs foia request gave no indication that she sought those particular documents E. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that scope of discovery in tread separation case should include documents relating generally to the tread separation defect or problem because otherwise the defendant would not produce documents probative on the issues of notice defectiveness and dangerousness
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 Investor has not retained any intermediary with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Company from any liability for any compensation to any intermediary retained by such Investor and the fees and expenses of defending against such liability or alleged liability.

assistant: Fees
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 Borrower and its Subsidiaries will use the proceeds of Loans to pay (a) capital expenditures relating to the development of Oil and Gas Properties of the Credit Parties in the Designated Area, including but not limited to facilities, infield flowlines, drilling, completion, production and incidental soft costs relating thereto, (b) to finance Investments and acquisitions of Oil and Gas Properties in the Designated Area, (c) to refinance the Obligations (as defined in the Existing Credit Agreement) and (d) other general corporate purposes and payment of the Transaction Expenses.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that appellate defense counsel had reason to believe that such relief would be likely to succeed or that defendant indicated an interest in such efforts. Therefore, we conclude that appellate counsel’s failure to so advise defendant was not constitutionally deficient. D. Postconviction Counsel Defendant next contends that his right to counsel was violated by the trial court’s failure to appoint postconviction counsel. We disagree. There is no federal or state constitutional right to counsel in Crim. P. 35 postcon-viction proceedings. Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375 (Colo.1994); Brinklow v. Riveland, 773 P.2d 517 (Colo.1989); People v. Silva, 131 P.3d 1082, 2005 WL 1300860 (Colo.App. No. 04CA0661, June 2, 2005); People v. Ray, 801 P.2d 8 (Colo.App.1990); cf. People v. Valdez, supra (<HOLDING>); but see People v. Hickey, 914 P.2d 377 Options: A. recognizing that where a state prisoner declines to pursue certiorari in the united states supreme court that petitioners conviction is not final until after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the supreme court has passed B. recognizing the right to counsel on appeal C. recognizing right to counsel under colo const art ii 16 and car 51a for purpose of preparing and filing application for certiorari D. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel E. recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing right to counsel under colo const art ii 16 and car 51a for purpose of preparing and filing application for certiorari
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: Employee is engaged and shall serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of Employer and, as may be requested by Employer from time to time, any other direct or indirect subsidiaries of Employer that may be formed or acquired. In addition, Employee shall have such other duties and hold such other offices as may from time to time be reasonably assigned to him by the Board and consistent with the office of President and Chief Executive Officer. These services shall be provided from offices located in Oak Brook, Illinois, or such other location as may be mutually agreed.

assistant: Duties
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 are severable and the invalidity of any provision shall not affect the validity of any other provision. In the event that any arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction and venue shall determine that any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof is unenforceable, then the parties hereto agree that said arbitrator or court in making such determination shall have the power to reduce the duration and scope of such provision to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and that the Agreement in its reduced form shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent provided by law.

assistant: Severability
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: relied on state agency’s repeated representations that it had filed an EEOC complaint); Stutz v. Depository Trust Co., 497 F.Supp. 654 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (tolling limitations period where it appeared credible that state agency erroneously informed plaintiff it was unnecessary to check a required box on her retaliation claim when she had already checked that box on her initial complaint); Abbott v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 439 F.Supp. 643, 649 (D.N.H.1977) (finding that “the Department of Labor’s communication with plaintiff was such as might mislead a layperson into the course of action taken by plaintiff with the consequent failure to file [a] notice within the statutory period”); Ramos v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 76 Civ. 312, 1976 WL 581 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 1976) (<HOLDING>). If the pro se plaintiff believes that he can Options: A. holding that equitable tolling was appropriate where a pro se plaintiff had relied on the representations of the court clerk B. holding that tolling the statute of limitations was appropriate when the eeoc acknowledged that it had advocated the mistaken interpretation relied upon by the plaintiff C. holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling D. holding that when the department of insurance acknowledged that it had received an accident report of a claim within the statute of limitations it was thereafter estopped after the expiration of the statute of limitations to deny receipt of the claim E. holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tolling the statute of limitations was appropriate when the eeoc acknowledged that it had advocated the mistaken interpretation relied upon by the plaintiff
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: (addressing FOIA request for information compelled by the government, but noting Critical Mass test for information voluntarily provided); Cozen O’Connor v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 570 F.Supp.2d 749, 777 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (“For purposes of Exemption 4, the test of confidentiality differs depending upon whether the information was required by, or was voluntarily provided to, the agency.” (citing Critical Mass)); Sun-Sentinel Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 431 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1275 (S.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd sub nom. News-Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 489 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that both parties agree that Critical Mass would apply if the information was voluntarily provided to the government); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. U.S. EEOC, 922 F.Supp. 235, 242 (E.D. Mo. 1996) (<HOLDING>); Providence Journal Co. v. Convention Ctr. Options: A. holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation B. holding that although wade hearing may be constitutionally mandated under certain circumstances it is not mandated in all cases C. holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments D. holding that mmpia was not engaged in trade or commerce because of its character as a statutorily mandated nonprofit association that was motivated by legislative mandate not business or personal reasons citing barrett v mass insurers insolvency fund 412 mass 774 592 ne2d 1317 1319 1992 E. holding that information was voluntarily provided to the government which mandated the critical mass test

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that information was voluntarily provided to the government which mandated the critical mass test
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: assault offense, from which I dissent. A court-martial with members properly instructed in the law found appellant guilty of (among other offenses) the offense of indecent assault. To be convicted of an indecent assault, there is no requirement that the offensive touching itself be indecent. It is merely a simple assault committed by one with a prurient state of mind. United States v. Hoggard, 43 M.J. 1 (1995); United States v. Rodriguez, 31 M.J. 150 (C.M.A.1990). There is no requirement that the accused actually gratify his lust or sexual desires through the offensive touching. In addition, evidence of other misconduct is admissible to show the requisite intent. See, e.g., United States v. Reynolds, 29 M.J. 105, 109 (C.M.A.1989); United States v. Cox, 18 M.J. 72, 74-75 (C.M.A.1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the record shows that the Options: A. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent B. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence C. holding that a pattern of lustful intent was circumstantial evidence relating to all charges in the case D. holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence E. holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a pattern of lustful intent was circumstantial evidence relating to all charges in the case
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 not be amended nor any rights hereunder waived except by an instrument in writing signed by the Party to be charged with such amendment or waiver and delivered by such Party to the Party claiming the benefit of such amendment or waiver.

assistant: Amendments
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 Member’s interest in the Company, including such Member’s interest, if any, in the capital, income, gains, losses, deductions and expenses of the Company shall be represented by units of limited liability company interest (each a “ Unit ”). As of the Effective Date, the Company shall have two authorized classes of Units, consisting of units of limited liability company interest denominated as “Common Units” and “Series A Preferred Units.” All Common Units shall have identical rights and privileges in all respects, and all Series A Preferred Units shall have identical rights and privileges in all respects. The Company shall have the authority to issue an unlimited number of Units. The ownership by a Unitholder of Units shall invest such Unitholder with the Economic Interest therein (except to the extent Transferred to an Assignee). For purposes of this Agreement, Units held by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries shall be deemed not to be outstanding. The Company may issue fractional Units, and all Units shall be rounded to the fourth decimal place.

assistant: Capitalization
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: commercial carrier furthered or advanced or carried out in some way the scheme or plan to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of fraudulent representations,” and also that "an interstate commercial carrier is a carrier . .. engaged in transporting persons or property across state lines.” J.A. 556-57. 3 . We pause briefly to address Appellants' suggestion that Congress intended the mail fraud statute, like the wire fraud statute, to be a regulation of the "use of channels of interstate commerce” under the first Lopez category and, therefore, that we should look to the wire fraud statute, which requires proof that a wiring actually crossed state lines, for guidance in interpreting the mail fraud statute. See e.g., United. States v. Darby, 37 F.3d 1059, 1067 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In contrast to the mail fraud statute, the Options: A. holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner B. holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus C. holding in the context of the criminal false claims act that to prove falsity the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time the defendant made it D. holding that the government must prove the defendant knew of the features of the firearm that brought it within the scope of the act E. holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that while the government was required to prove that the defendants phone call crossed a state line the government did not need to prove that the defendant knew of the interstate nexus
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: facility. Certainly, the same cannot be said for snowboarding. This Court’s conclusion that the Statute applies to snowboarding makes particularly good sense given the growing popularity of the sport. Nowadays, ski areas are more often dominated by snow boarders; if they could sue for collisions occurring on the ski trails, insurance costs to ski operators would increase substantially, in direct derogation of the legislature’s intent. In those states with statutes similar to the Statute here, courts have reached the same conclusion as this Court and held that the two sports should be regarded as the same when it comes to protecting the ski operator from lawsuits arising from collision on the slopes. See e.g. Cecere v. Loon Mountain Recreation Corp., 923 A.2d 198, 203 (N.H. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Shukaski v. Indian Head Mountain Resort, 166 Options: A. holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983 B. holding that a person using a snowboard is a skier within the meaning of the new hampshire statute C. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of 1983 D. holding that a state was embraced within the meaning of the word person where the word person was defined as meaning and including a partnership association company or corporation as well as a natural person E. holding that unless the law enforcement officers show of authority succeeds in restraining a person the person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a person using a snowboard is a skier within the meaning of the new hampshire statute
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: finding that the earlier bargaining alleviated some of the burdens otherwise associated with negotiating an initial contract. See Lee Lumber, 334 NLRB at 402-03 & nn. 34, 40. The Board’s unsupported finding regarding the impact of the parties’ earlier negotiations was critical to its analysis. As the Board recognized, “[h]ad the parties done little or no previous bargaining, the difficulties often encountered in bargaining for an initial contract might loom larger in the overall analysis.” Am. Golf Corp., 350 NLRB at 267. As we may affirm the Board only on its own reasoning, we may not enforce the Board’s order when a critical aspect of that reasoning lacks evidentiary support. Cf. Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 373-75, 118 S.Ct. 818, 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Because the Board’s determination that the Options: A. holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials B. holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses argument that ring announced a substantive rule C. holding that reasoned decisionmaking in which the rule announced is the rule applied requires that the boards decreed result be supported by the reasons adduced D. holding that the rule announced by booker does not operate retroactively E. holding that simmons announced a new rule and retrospective application of the rule was barred by teague

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that reasoned decisionmaking in which the rule announced is the rule applied requires that the boards decreed result be supported by the reasons adduced
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 2(d)(iv) below, Employee’s entitlement to benefits from the Company, and eligibility to participate in the Company’s benefit plans, programs and policies, shall cease on the Termination Date, except to the extent Employee elects to and is eligible to receive continued healthcare coverage pursuant to the provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (“ COBRA ”), for herself and any covered dependents, in accordance with the provisions of COBRA.

assistant: Benefits
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: involved use of explosives (including any explosive material or destructive device) or, by its nature, presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Id. § 4B1.2(a), cmt. n. 1. We hold that felony driving under the influence is a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.2. This follows from the plain language of the guideline, which encompasses offenses “involving] conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Id. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (emphasis added). Driving while intoxicated clearly presents a “serious potential risk of physical injury to another” and therefore is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(2). Other circuits have reached this conclusion in analogous cases. E.g., United States v. Rutherford, 54 F.3d 370, 371-72, 376-77 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DeSantiago-Gonzalez, 207 Options: A. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a B. holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a deadlyweapon finding because a motor vehicle is not a deadly weapon per se and there was no testimony in the record that defendant operated his vehicle in a manner that was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury C. holding that misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated constitutes a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a D. holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol E. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a
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 the other Loan Documents represent the entire agreement of the Parent, the Borrower, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Administrative Agent or any Lender relative to the subject matter hereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein or in the other Loan Documents.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will not, and will not permit any of its Subsidiaries to, sell, lease or otherwise transfer any property or assets to, or purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any property or assets from, or otherwise engage in any other transactions with, any of its Affiliates, except (a) in the ordinary course of business at prices and on terms and conditions not less favorable to the Company or such Subsidiary than could be obtained on an arm’s-length basis from unrelated third parties, (b) transactions between or among the Company and its Subsidiaries not involving any other Affiliate and (c) transactions pursuant to the Permitted JV Agreements.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: however, that in some cases two medical opinions can be consistent even if there are some differences in medical findings. See, e.g., Parker v. Harris, 626 F.2d 225, 233 (2d Cir.1980) (concluding that a non-treating physician’s opinion was consistent with a treating physician’s opinion, despite some difference in medical findings, because both doctors found major functional limitations). Thus, it is important for the ALJ to explain why this particular difference in medical findings is substantial, particularly because Ellington stated his condition varied from day to day. Second, the fact that Segal did not recommend Ellington for surgery is not necessarily evidence that Segal disagreed with Handago regarding Ellington’s disability. See, e.g., Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134-135 (<HOLDING>). Finally, that the claimant admits to taking Options: A. holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability B. holding that no medical advisor was necessary when the evidence did not indicate that the claimant was disabled before his dli C. holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled D. holding that a history of conservative medical treatment undermines allegations of disabling symptoms E. holding that plaintiff established for purposes of summary judgment a material question as to whether he was disabled because of hernia surgery

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled
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 Term, the Bank shall pay the Executive an annual base salary of not less than $281,800.00 (less applicable withholdings), as compensation for services rendered by the Executive under this Agreement. The base salary shall be paid to the Executive in accordance with established payroll practices of the Bank (but no less frequently than twice per month). The Executive may receive base salary increases and incentive, bonus compensation or other compensation in the amounts determined by the Board of Directors of the Bank.

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: Except as provided otherwise in this Agreement, the Restricted Stock shall vest in three equal increments on an annual basis in March or September (depending on grant date) beginning no sooner than eight months after grant date and no later than fourteen months after grant date, subject to Grantee’s continued Service as an Employee from the Effective Date until the vesting dates (each, a “ Vesting Date ”).

assistant: Vesting
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 rate must make a threshold showing that the rate at issue is unreasonable. Milne, 970 F.2d at 570; Covey, 763 F.Supp. at 482-83. Relevant factors in the determination include “relevant rate comparisons, a carrier’s proffer of a particular rate, and whether the rate would have moved the traffic had it been asserted at the time the shipments took place.” Matter of Brown Transport Truckload, Inc., 144 B.R. 183, 187 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1992). One common method of making a prima facie showing of unreasonableness is to provide affidavit testimony demonstrating a significant disparity between the rates sought to be charged by the carrier and the rates charged by competing carriers at the time in question. See, e.g., Vining v. The Eureka Co., 1992 WL 370520, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 8, 1992) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Brown, 144 B.R. at 187 (noting Options: A. holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo B. holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable C. holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service D. holding that absence of competitive injury was not a defense to prima facie violation of 2e E. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding eighty percent increase in demanded rates and showing that original rates were competitive with other carriers was prima facie unreasonable
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: “does not constitute a [constructively] fraudulent conveyance” under New York law); DCL § 272 (stating that the repayment of an antecedent debt may constitute fair consideration). But there is a significant exception to that rule: the repayment of an antecedent debt is never made for fair consideration where the transferee is a “corporate insider,” Frank, 48 F.3d at 635, including “an officer, director, or major shareholder of the trans-feror,” In re Sharp Int’l Corp., 403 F.3d 43, 54 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). That exception applies only to payments that satisfy preexisting obligations. Thus, a debtor may receive fair consideration if it makes a payment to a corporate insider in exchange for new value contemporaneously provided. See Frank, 48 F.3d at 635 (<HOLDING>); see also Cilco Cement Corp. v. White, 55 Options: A. holding that a preexisting or antecedent debt may constitute sufficient consideration to support a mortgage B. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or C. holding that the exception for repayment of an insiders antecedent debt did not apply to a debtors conveyance of two mortgages to a former officer regardless of whether she was a corporate insider because each of her mortgages secured a contemporaneous advance of funds not a preexisting debt D. holding that the repayment of an antecedent debt constitutes fair consideration E. holding that a debt incurred for a personal family or household purpose is a consumer debt even though it is secured by the debtors real property

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the exception for repayment of an insiders antecedent debt did not apply to a debtors conveyance of two mortgages to a former officer regardless of whether she was a corporate insider because each of her mortgages secured a contemporaneous advance of funds not a preexisting debt
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: case.” Aplt. Combined Opening Br. & Appl. for COA at 10. He asserts, more specifically, that “[while] the three Native-American defendants plotted[,] planned[,] and successfully committed a violent assault against an innocent inmate ... [,] the Appellant and two codefendants in fact acted in response to the aggressive provocations of Wheelock.” Id. Mr. Deberry also alleges that the government sought the maximum sentence against him out of retaliation for his previous assertions of discriminatory prosecution. The government argued before the district court that Mr. Deberry is precluded from asserting his selective prosecution claim in a § 2255 motion because the claim was previously resolved on direct criminal appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 342 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court found that “the issue Options: A. holding that claims not asserted on direct appeal may not be raised in 2255 motion absent showing of cause for and actual prejudice resulting from failure to raise them B. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal C. holding premagwood that where a first 2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second 2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa D. holding that defendant could not raise in a 2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal E. holding that a 2255 hearing is permitted on an issue previously addressed on direct appeal when there has been an intervening change in the law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant could not raise in a 2255 motion an issue previously decided on direct criminal appeal
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: There is in our view no intrinsic or fundamental incompatibility between the strictures currently imposed upon magistrates under R. l:15-l(c) and the more extensive restrictions of the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law. Moreover, there is no reason that the limitations of R. 1:15-1 should be deemed to be the sole and exclusive limitation upon the practice of law by members of the Judiciary. The absence of any expression of preemptive intent in the rules adopted by this Court governing the conduct of attorneys and judges, as well as the long-established policy of judicial acceptance of statutory arrangements touching upon this Court’s constitutional prerogatives, distinguish the situation here from the one involved in Wajert v. State Ethics Commission, 491 Pa. 255, 420 A2d 439 (1980) (<HOLDING>). 9 ln so ruling we acknowledge that it is Options: A. holding pennsylvania foreign attachment procedures unconstitutional B. holding that pennsylvania law applied as the parties did not argue choice of law issue and implied that pennsylvania law applied by focusing their arguments on same C. holding 1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff D. holding pennsylvania replevin statute unconstitutional E. holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges

assistant: The best answer is E. holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges
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 limitation to revive claims that are otherwise barred. See, e.g., Middleton, 578 F.3d at 663 (“[E]ven if we could interpret § 4327(b) to apply to some USERRA claims filed before October 10, 2008, this would not save Middleton’s thirteen-year-old cause of action, which was already time-barred when § 4327(b) took effect.”); In re Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir.2004) (“[Bjecause neither the language nor the legislative history of Section 804 requires that we do so, we decline to apply Section 804 retroactively to revive plaintiffs’ previously expired securities fraud claims and instead defer to the longstanding presumption against retroactive application.”); Kansas Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Reimer & Koger Assocs., Inc., 61 F.3d 608, 615 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Vill. of Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F.2d 1521, Options: A. holding that a shortened statute of limitations should not be applied retroactively as to bar otherwise valid civil claims B. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired C. holding that even though statute of limitations on claims brought by the kansas public employees retirement system explicitly applied retroactively it was not intended to revive lapsed actions D. holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case E. holding that because the act lacked an expression of specific intent to apply retroactively the extended limitations period did not revive claims

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even though statute of limitations on claims brought by the kansas public employees retirement system explicitly applied retroactively it was not intended to revive lapsed actions