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: amounted to harmless error. II Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the second degree murder charges for insufficient evidence of malice. “This Court reviews the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.” State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). “ ‘Upon defendant’s motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.’ ” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000) (quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (199 0 S.E.2d 859, 864-65 (2000) (<HOLDING>). See also State v. Norman, 213 N.C. App. 114, Options: A. holding trial court properly denied motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of malice in second degree murder case resulting from impaired driving based in part on evidence that defendant drove his pickup truck erratically swerved off the road and struck the victims bicycle while he was traveling at a speed of approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour B. holding that defendant who admitted that he knew when he deliberately drove off in his truck that he was disobeying an officers lawful order to park his truck at the side of the road had engaged in conduct that was both knowing and willful C. holding that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for vehicular homicide where the defendant was driving 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone before the collision and a minimum of 50 miles per hour at the time of impact D. holding evidence of malice sufficient for trial court to properly deny motion to dismiss in second degree murder case stemming from crash caused by impaired driving where evidence showed defendant had a 13 bac ran over a sign and continued driving and at that point should have known that he was a danger to the safety of others continued driving and weaving side to side eventually ran off road and without braking or otherwise attempting to avoid collision hit another truck E. holding state presented substantial evidence of malice in second degree murder case resulting from impaired driving based in part on evidence that defendant was driving without looking at the road in order to pick up a fit cigarette he had dropped when defendants truck literally flew across the intersection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding trial court properly denied motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence of malice in second degree murder case resulting from impaired driving based in part on evidence that defendant drove his pickup truck erratically swerved off the road and struck the victims bicycle while he was traveling at a speed of approximately 35 to 40 miles per hour
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: 1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1987). In this case, the Governor’s review of Miller’s parole decision was not “clearly and completely outside the scope of [his] jurisdiction.” Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155, 158 (9th Cir.1986). Although Article V, § 8(b) and Penal Code § 1304.2 on their face refer only to persons convicted of “murder,” it was not clear, at least before the California court clarified the scope of these provisions, that the term “murder” did not encompass conspiracy to commit murder. Conspiracy to commit murder is certainly closely related to the substantive off role grant, based on his erroneous reading of Article V, § 8(b), was in excess of his authority, it was not an act done in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Cf. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Governor Davis is entitled to Options: A. holding that a judge who misinterpreted a statute and erroneously exercised jurisdiction did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction B. holding that a judge who convicted defendant for contempt an act within the courts jurisdiction but without the affidavit required by statute to confer jurisdiction over the offense charged was still entitled to immunity his act was merely in excess of his jurisdiction C. holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction D. holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question E. holding that the jones act does not encroach on the admiralty jurisdiction intended by the constitution but permits that jurisdiction to be invoked and exercised as it has been from the beginning

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a judge who misinterpreted a statute and erroneously exercised jurisdiction did not act in the clear absence of all 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: sergeants. 2 . This court has reviewed the consent decree on three occasions. See Massachusetts Ass’n of Afro-American Police, Inc. v. Boston Police Dep’t, 973 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1992) (dismissing Federa.tion's 1991 challenge to the decree); Stuart v. Roache, 951 F.2d 446 (1st Cir.1991) (rejecting reverse-discrimination challenge to decree); Massachusetts Ass’n of Afro-American Police, Inc. v. Boston Police Dep’t, 780 F.2d 5 (1st Cir.1985) (rejecting Federation’s motion to intervene). 3 . Defendants do not argue the defense of qualified immunity, a defense supported by Evans’s reliance on the court's contemporaneous construction of the decree — even if'that construction turned out to be, as we now hold, wrong. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (<HOLDING>). We would scarcely expect a reasonable Options: A. holding that reasonable person would have known based on ros relatively contemporaneous communications about what evidence was missing in order to substantiate claim B. holding that immunity extends to actions that do not violate norms of which a reasonable person would have known C. holding that the public policy considerations supporting public officials immunity required that the immunity be applied to bar contribution actions as well as direct actions D. holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish inducement to infringe must show that the alleged infringers actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements E. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that immunity extends to actions that do not violate norms of which a reasonable person would have known
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Company nor you may make any assignment of this Agreement or any interest herein, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the other; provided, however, that the Company may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without your consent in the event that the Company shall hereafter effect a reorganization, or consolidate with, or merge into any Person or other entity or transfer all or substantially all of its property or assets to any Person. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Company, its successors (including without limitation any transferee of all or substantially all of its assets) and permitted assigns and upon you, your executors, administrators, heirs and permitted assigns.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: results in the conclusion that, at the time of the commencement of the mother’s action, Canada was the children’s home state. Thus, because another “state” had jurisdiction to enter a child-custody determination pursuant to the UCCJEA, the trial court in Alabama lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination in the present case. Subject-matter jurisdiction may not be conferred by agreement or consent. § 30-3B-201, Official Comment (“It should also be noted that since jurisdiction to make a child custody determination is subject matter jurisdiction, an agreement of the parties to confer jurisdiction on a court that would not otherwise have jurisdiction under this Act is ineffective.”); see also C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 868 So.2d 451, 453-54 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Because a judgment entered without Options: A. holding that a mothers actions in litigating the propriety of the judgment under review could not confer jurisdiction by consent in violation of the uccjea B. holding that the mere delivery of documents does not confer jurisdiction C. holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing D. holding that partys consent to the trial courts entry of judgment waives any error except for jurisdiction error contained in the judgment E. holding that the flsa does not confer jurisdiction over ambulance services

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a mothers actions in litigating the propriety of the judgment under review could not confer jurisdiction by consent in violation of the uccjea
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: he observed Grimes revving the engine of the truck for some five minutes before investigating the situation. Moreover, when Chief Emeriek arrived at the scene, he witnessed Grimes sitting in the driver’s seat of the pickup truck continuing to rev the engine. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to show that Grimes was in physical control of the truck. Compare Crum, 362 Pa.Super. at 113-17, 523 A.2d at 801-02 (finding that evidence that defendant was found slumped across the front seat of a car with the motor running and lights on was sufficient to support the inference that the defendant was in control of the machinery of the motor vehicle as is required for a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol) with Commonwealth v. Price, 416 Pa.Super. 23, 610 A.2d 488 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Grimes next argues that the trial court erred Options: A. holding the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the juvenile a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by four persons was in possession of marijuana recovered from a crumpled piece of newspaper behind the drivers seat B. holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary C. holding that evidence that defendant was sitting in the drivers seat of the ear which was not running and held keys to trunk in his hand did not rise to the level of actual physical control necessary to support a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol D. holding conviction for possession was supported by sufficient evidence when a firearm was found under the passenger seat where the defendant had been sitting and the arresting officer observed the defendant trying to place something in the glove compartment which when searched yielded an ammunition clip matching the gun under the seat E. holding that the defendant possessed a stolen automobile in which he was found sitting not even driving

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that evidence that defendant was sitting in the drivers seat of the ear which was not running and held keys to trunk in his hand did not rise to the level of actual physical control necessary to support a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol
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: Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, all confidential records and data relating to Employees to be shared or transferred pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to Section 6.9 of the Separation and Distribution Agreement and the requirements of applicable Law.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you think that there is a mistake , please make sure that you ask us to confirm any changes in writing , as we only accept responsibility for statements and representations made in writing by an officer of headspace .

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: Section 5.2 of the Disclosure Schedule sets forth for each Acquired Company: (a) its jurisdiction of incorporation, formation or organization; (b) whether such Acquired Company is a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other type of entity, (c) the number of authorized Equity Interests for each class of its Equity Interests; and (d) the number of issued and outstanding Equity Interests for each class of its Equity Interests, the names of the holders thereof, and the number of Equity Interests held by each such holder. All of the Equity Interests of the Acquired Companies have been duly authorized and are validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable and were issued in compliance with applicable Laws. None of the Equity Interests of the Acquired Companies were issued in violation of any agreement to which the applicable Acquired Company is a party or is subject or in violation of any preemptive or similar rights of any Person. There are no outstanding Commitments that would require any Acquired Company to issue, sell, or otherwise cause to become outstanding any of its Equity Interests or other interests in any Acquired Company. There are no voting trusts, proxies, or other agreements with respect to the voting or transfer of the Equity Interests.

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: a. "Confidential Information" shall mean all confidential or proprietary written, recorded, electronic or oral information or data (including without limitation research, developmental, engineering, manufacturing, technical, marketing, sales, financial, operating, performance, cost, business and process information or data, trade secrets, discoveries, ideas, designs, data, source code, object code, processes, computer programs, developments, flow diagrams, know-how, and computer programming and other software and software techniques) provided (whether such confidentiality or proprietary status is indicated orally or in writing, whether or not the specific words "confidential" or "proprietary" are used) to a Party (the “Receiving Party”) by the other Party (the “Disclosing Party”) in the course of the exchange of such information or data between the Parties.

assistant: No
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: appearing before the grand jury. United States v. Paige, 241 Fed.Appx. 620, 622 (11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress defendant’s grand jury testimony where defendant “was not read his Miranda rights before he testified”); United States v. Myers, 123 F.3d 350, 361 (6th Cir.1997) (“The few circuits that have addressed this issue have likewise been hesitant to require as a matter of constitutional law Miranda-like warnings to suspects appearing before the grand jury.”); United States v. Gillespie, 974 F.2d 796, 804 (7th Cir.1992) (“Courts confronting this issue have uniformly suggested that any Mir randa-type warnings that may be applicable in the grand jury context are minimal at best.”); Labbe v. Berman, 621 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Here, the prosecutor warned Defendant that: Options: A. recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination B. holding that miranda warnings were not required for suspect testifying at inquest when suspects lawyer had previously advised him of his privilege against selfincrimination C. holding that a witness may invoke the privilege against selfincrimination at trial despite testifying previously before a grand jury in the same case D. holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific E. recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that miranda warnings were not required for suspect testifying at inquest when suspects lawyer had previously advised him of his privilege against selfincrimination
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: 2305(a). It is well settled that the trial judge has broad discretion to consider the equity of the case in disposing of the marital homestead. See Charles, 788 F.2d 960. A reviewing court may find that there has been an abuse of discretion where “there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant factors.” Newland Moran Real Estate v. Green Cay Properties, Inc., 41 F.Supp.2d 576, 579 (D.V.I.App.Div.1999) (quoting Virgin Islands Water & Power Authority v. Virgin Islands Telephone Corp, 18 V.I. 451, 453 (D.V.I.1981)). Disposition of the marital homestead (unlike determinations regarding alimony, divorce, and support) allows for consideration of fault. See Charles, 788 F.2d at 966 n. 14 (<HOLDING>); see also Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204 Options: A. holding that only relevant factors must be considered B. holding that fault is considered in disposing of the marital homestead C. holding that it was a due process violation where the judge in issuing the death sentence against the recommendation of the jury considered a confidential presentencing report that was not considered by the jury D. holding that pending contingencyfee cases of a law firm constitute future income and not marital assets and although these cases may not be considered in calculating propertydivision alimony they may be considered in establishing support alimony E. holding based only on commonlaw doctrine statutory comparative fault not considered

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fault is considered in disposing of the marital homestead
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Revolving Credit Facility is increased in accordance with this Section, the Administrative Agent and the applicable Borrower shall determine the effective date (the “ Revolving Credit Increase Effective Date ”) and the final allocation of such increase. The Administrative Agent shall promptly notify the applicable Borrower and the Revolving Credit Lenders and New Revolving Credit Lenders of the final allocation of such increase and the Revolving Credit Increase Effective Date. Upon the effectiveness of any such increase, this Agreement shall be amended to the extent (but only to the extent) necessary to reflect the existence and terms of the increased Revolving Credit Facility. Any such amendment may be memorialized in writing by the Administrative Agent with the Borrowers’ consent and furnished to the other parties hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower will be treated as a partnership or a disregarded entity for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Borrower will timely file or cause to be filed all federal income and other material tax returns and reports required to be filed by it and will pay or cause to be paid all federal income and other material taxes and related liabilities required to be paid by it, except taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the Borrower sets aside on its books adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP. Borrower will not permit any Liens for Impositions to be imposed on or with respect to any of its income or assets, other than Liens for Impositions not yet due and payable and for which Borrower sets aside on its books adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 (1988) (“FSIA”); (2) that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants violates due process; and (3) that the Court should dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act The FSIA provides that foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities are immune from suit in United States courts unless the conduct complained of fits within various specified exceptions. See Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d 790, 793 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125, 105 S.Ct. 2656, 86 L.Ed.2d 273 (1985); see also Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428, 109 S.Ct. 683, 102 L.Ed.2d 818 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that Argentina and Banco Options: A. holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction B. holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction C. holding that the fsia provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court D. holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed E. holding that an entity majorityowned by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state is itself an agency or instrumentality of that foreign state under the fsia

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the fsia provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in federal court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Company, in its discretion, determines that it is obligated to withhold any tax in connection with the grant or vesting of Restricted Stock hereunder, the Participant must make arrangements satisfactory to the Company to pay or provide for any applicable federal, state, local and other withholding obligations. The Participant may satisfy any federal, state, local or other tax withholding obligation relating to the vesting of Restricted Stock hereunder by tendering cash payment to the Company, or if permitted by the Committee (which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld), by any of the following means: (a) authorizing the Company to withhold shares of Common Stock from the shares of Common Stock otherwise held by the Participant as a result of the vesting of the Restricted Stock; provided, however, that no shares of Common Stock shall be withheld with a value exceeding the minimum amount of tax required to be withheld by law; or (b) delivering to the Company previously owned and unencumbered shares of Common Stock. The Company also has the right to withhold from any other compensation payable to the Participant.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by any of the parties without the prior written consent of the other party. Subject to the preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Any purported assignment not permitted under this Section 5.3 shall be null and void.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: abuse its discretion in denying Nganso’s motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We agree with the Board’s determination that Nganso failed to present clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that her marriage is bona fide as required by Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (B.I.A.2002). Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DENIED 1 . We have also considered Nganso’s challenge to the immigration judge’s refusal to allow her witness to testify and discern no prejudice from the immigration judge’s decision. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-21 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Nganso does not challenge the denial of Options: A. holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim B. holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim C. holding that to establish a violation of due process an alien must show that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her claims internal quotation marks omitted D. holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim E. holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of these terms invalid or unenforceable , that provision will be enforced to the maximum extent permissible and the other provisions of these terms will remain in full force and effect .

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: Prior to the delivery of any shares of Company Common Stock in settlement of Performance Shares, the Company shall have the power and right to deduct or withhold or require the Participant to remit to the Company an amount sufficient to satisfy any federal, state, local, or foreign taxes of any kind which the Company in its sole discretion deems necessary to be withheld or remitted to comply with any applicable law, rule, or regulation. Participants will be deemed to have elected to pay the withholding taxes owed by allowing the Company to withhold shares on the Vesting Date (and delivering to the Participant the net shares of the Company’s common stock) having a Fair Market Value equal to the amount sufficient to satisfy the Company’s minimum statutory withholding obligations. The Participant is responsible for paying Participant’s taxes that result from the granting or vesting of the Performance Shares. Taxes include, but are not limited to, Federal taxes, social insurance or FICA taxes, state and local taxes, and any other tax, if applicable.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: when you order ( `` order '' ) any products , or otherwise use or access the products , you agree to be bound by these terms and all applicable laws , rules and regulations .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Credit Party maintains or contributes to any Pension Plan subject to Title IV of ERISA. There is no accumulated funding deficiency within the meaning of Section 412 of the Internal Revenue Code or Section 302 of ERISA, or any outstanding liability with respect to any Pension Plans owed to the PBGC other than future premiums due and owing pursuant to Section 4007 of ERISA, and no “reportable event” as defined in Section 4043(c) of ERISA has occurred with respect to any Pension Plan other than an event for which the notice requirement has been waived by the PBGC. None of the Credit Parties has engaged in a prohibited transaction with respect to any Pension Plan, other than a prohibited transaction for which an exemption is available and has been obtained, which could subject such Credit Parties to a material tax or penalty imposed by Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code or Section 502(i) of ERISA. Each Pension Plan is being maintained and funded in accordance with its terms and is in material compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. No Credit Party has had a complete or partial withdrawal from any Multiemployer Plan that has resulted or could reasonably be expected to have resulted in any Withdrawal Liability and, except as notified to Agent in writing following the Effective Date, no such Multiemployer Plan is in reorganization (within the meaning of Section 4241 of ERISA) or insolvent (within the meaning of Section 4245 of ERISA).

assistant: Erisa
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 the lodestar method in calculating fee awards. See Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 516-17; Cardizem, 218 F.R.D. at 532. However, the Sixth Circuit has observed a “trend towards adoption of a percentage of the fund method in [common fund] cases.” Rawlings, 9 F.3d at 515; In re Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 398 F.3d 778, 780 (6th Cir.2005); see also § 21D(a)(6) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(6) (“Total attorneys’ fees and expenses award by the court to counsel for the plaintiff class shall not exceed a reasonable percentage of the amount of any damages and prejudgment interest actually paid to the class.”) As the court observed in Fournier v. PFS Invs., 997 F.Supp. 828 (E.D.Mich.1998): The lodestar warding 30% fee); Rio Hair, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20440 at *56, 1996 WL 780512at *18 (<HOLDING>); In re Visteon Corp. ERISA Litig., No. Options: A. recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge B. recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund C. holding that attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be reasonable under the circumstances D. recognizing that class counsels request for a 10 common fund award is well below the typical 2030 fee awards in class actions E. recognizing that unit owners own the common elements in fee as tenants in common

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the acceptable range of fee awards is 20 to 50 of the common fund
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: None of Parent, any Borrower and their Subsidiaries or, to the knowledge of Parent, any Borrower or any Subsidiary, any director, officer, agent, employee or Affiliate of such Loan Party or Subsidiary, is aware of or has taken any action, directly or indirectly, that could result in a violation by such persons of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, and the rules and regulations thereunder (the “ FCPA ”), the UK Bribery Act 2010 (to the extent applicable) or any other applicable anti-corruption laws, including, without limitation, making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay or authorization or approval of the payment of any money, or other property, gift, promise to give or authorization of the giving of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any “foreign official” (as such term is defined in the FCPA) or any foreign political party or official thereof or any candidate for foreign political office in violation of the FCPA or any other applicable anti-corruption laws. Parent, each Borrower, and its Subsidiaries and to the knowledge of Parent, each Borrower and its Subsidiaries, their respective Affiliates, have conducted their businesses in compliance, in all material respects, with the FCPA, the UK Bribery Act 2010 (to the extent applicable), and other applicable similar anti-corruption laws (collectively, the “Anti-Corruption Laws”) and have instituted and maintained and will maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to promote and achieve compliance with such laws and with the representation and warranty contained herein. The Borrowers will not, directly or indirectly, use the proceeds of the Loans or any Letter of Credit, or lend, contribute or otherwise make available proceeds of the Loans or any Letter of Credit in any manner that will result in a violation of Anti-Corruption Laws by Parent, any of Parent’s Subsidiaries, any Agent, any Lender, the Lead Arranger or the Joint Bookrunners.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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: Neither a Reportable Event nor an “accumulated funding deficiency” (within the meaning of Section 412 of the Code or Section 302 of ERISA) has occurred during the five-year period prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made with respect to any Single Employer Plan or Multiemployer Plan, and, except as, in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, each Plan has complied in all material respects with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code. No termination of a Single Employer Plan or Multiemployer Plan has occurred, and no Lien in favor of the PBGC or such a Plan has arisen, during such five-year period. The present value of all accrued benefits under each Single Employer Plan that is a “pension plan” within the meaning of Section 3(2) of ERISA (based on those assumptions used to fund such Single Employer Plans) did not, as of the last annual valuation date prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made, exceed the value of the assets of such Single Employer Plan allocable to such accrued benefits by a material amount. Neither the Borrower nor any Commonly Controlled Entity has had, within the past five years, a complete or partial withdrawal from any Multiemployer Plan that has resulted or would reasonably be expected to result in a material liability under ERISA, and neither the Borrower nor any Commonly Controlled Entity would become subject to any material liability under ERISA if the Borrower or any such Commonly Controlled Entity were to withdraw completely from all Multiemployer Plans as of the valuation date most closely preceding the date on which this representation is made or deemed made. No such Multiemployer Plan is in Reorganization or Insolvent.

assistant: Erisa
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 Termination Agreement shall be binding upon all the parties to the Licensing Agreement and their respective successors and assigns. This Termination Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the internal laws in effect in the State of Texas.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 prior Fifth Circuit decisions cited, we find no Sixth Amendment violation. 2. Eighth Amendment Martin also challenges his mandatory life sentence on the basis that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s proportionality requirement. In Harmelin v. Michigan, the Supreme Court permitted to stand under the Eighth Amendment a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for one drug conviction. 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991). “Severe, mandatory penalties may be cruel, but they are not unusual in the constitutional sense, having been employed in various forms throughout our Nation’s history.” Id. at 994-95, 111 S.Ct. 2680. The federal “three strikes” law, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), is constitutional. Cf. United States v. Rasco, 123 F.3d 222, 226-27 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We are bound by our precedent and affirm the Options: A. holding that the ex post facto clause has no application to deportation B. recognizing separation of powers doctrine C. holding that district court did not violate ex post facto clause in applying remedial holding of booker at sentencing D. holding that 18 usc 3559c did not violate separation of powers doctrine or ex post facto clause E. holding that revocation of medical license does not violate the ex post facto clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 18 usc 3559c did not violate separation of powers doctrine or ex post facto clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: indicate a pattern of striking blacks from the venire, the fact that the jury has a higher percentage of blacks than the venire had does not mean that no prima facie case of discrimination has been made. OPINION WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED; AND APPLICATION OVERRULED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, KENNEDY, INGRAM and COOK, JJ., concur. HOUSTON, J., concurs in the result. MADDOX, J., who did not participate in the original decision, dissents from the denial of the State’s application for reheating. 1 . We have held, since the release of Harrell I, that a defendant can establish a prima facie case solely on the fact that a prosecutor used a large number of his peremptory challenges to strike black veniremembers. See Ex parte Williams, 571 So.2d 987, 990 (Ala. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d Options: A. holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool B. holding that the prosecutors use of four of his five peremptory strikes to remove blacks was sufficient to establish a prima facie case C. holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 D. holding that without more the mere fact that the prosecutor used a high number of strikes to remove women from the venire is insufficient to establish a prima facie case E. holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the prosecutors use of four of his five peremptory strikes to remove blacks was sufficient to establish a prima facie 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: Walmart has been duly incorporated and is validly existing as a corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with the corporate power and authority to own its properties and conduct its business in all material respects as currently conducted.

assistant: Organizations
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: 950 S.W.2d 121, 132 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no pet.); Ulloa v. State, 901 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.); Castaneda v. State, 852 S.W.2d 291, 294-95 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1993, no pet.). A waiver of a “right” is distinguished from a waiver of an “error.” Until there is a timely request for the instruction the constitutional right to the instruction does not arise. Only if there is a timely request for the instruction and the trial court refuses the request does error occur. Whether to request a “no adverse inferences” jury instruction is within the tactical discretion of the defense counsel. Gomez-Olivas, 897 F.2d at 502; Henson v. State, 734 S.W.2d 119, 120 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). Cf. Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57, 62-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also 43A George E. Dix & Robert O. Options: A. holding defensive issues not applicable to the case within article 3614 of code of criminal procedure unless and until defense counsel raises issue by requesting jury instruction on issue B. holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code C. holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel D. holding previous case when no one challenged the issue could not be precedent on the issue E. holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested

assistant: The best answer is A. holding defensive issues not applicable to the case within article 3614 of code of criminal procedure unless and until defense counsel raises issue by requesting jury instruction on 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these terms represent the entire agreement between us and you and supersede and replace all and any previous terms , conditions , agreements and arrangements in respect of your use of the skyscanner services and/or skyscanner platforms .

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: Sanofi shall specify in each Opt-In Notice provided with respect to a Product Candidate Family pursuant to this ARTICLE 5 whether, in Sanofi’s reasonable opinion, the Parties would be required by applicable Law to file with the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, any notification and report form under the HSR Act (an “ HSR Filing ”) with respect to the exercise of Sanofi’s Opt-In Rights with respect to the applicable Product Candidate Family. The Parties will cooperate with one another to the extent necessary in the preparation of any such HSR Filing. Sanofi shall be responsible for the filing fees associated with any such HSR Filing. The Parties shall each use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that applicable waiting period under the HSR Act or any applicable comparable foreign law in the Territory expires or is terminated as soon as practicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Section 5.6 shall require (a) either Party to disclose to the other Party any information that is subject to obligations of confidentiality owed to Third Parties (nor shall either Party be required to conduct joint meetings with any Governmental Authority in which such information might be shared with the other Party), or (b) either Party or any of its Affiliates to commit to any divestiture, license (in whole or in part) or any arrangement to hold separate (or any similar arrangement) with respect to any of its products or assets.

assistant: Further Assurances