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: Id. at 1193. As Reina-Rodriguez II, on collateral review, retroactively applied a rule holding that a certain offense was no longer an ACCA “crime of violence” to a corresponding Sentencing Guidelines provision, the Court must apply the same reasoning to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Following Welch, Johnson is a substantive rule retroactive to cases on collateral review. See Welch, 136 S.Ct. at 1265. Under binding Ninth Circuit precedent, a substantive, retroactive rule narrowing the definition of “crime of violence” under ACCA is retroactive to identical Sentencing Guidelines provisions, regardless of how the Teague framework might operate when applied independently in the Sentencing Guidelines context. See In re Hubbard, 825 F.3d 225, 2016 WL 3181417, at *6 (4th Cir. June 8, 2016) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court is bound to conclude Options: A. holding that the act is retroactive B. holding that johnson is retroactive to the sentencing guidelines as the government has cited no case to support the proposition that a rule can be substantive in one context but procedural in another C. holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive D. holding the supreme court has not held in a case or a combination of cases that the rule in johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral review and therefore it has not made johnson retroactive E. holding that the earlier guidelines control when retroactive application of the guidelines in effect at sentencing would result in more severe penalties

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that johnson is retroactive to the sentencing guidelines as the government has cited no case to support the proposition that a rule can be substantive in one context but procedural in another
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall be governed by and construed exclusively in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, United States of America, without giving effect to any choice of law rule that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the laws of the State of New York to the rights and duties of the parties hereto.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you provide the equipment ( computer , phone , tablet , etc. ) and pay any fees to connect to the internet and app stores , or for data or cellular usage to download and use the service .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The construction, validity and performance of this Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the state of New York, excluding its provisions regarding conflicts of law. The UNCITRAL Convention on the International Sale of Goods shall not apply.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: monetary relief directly related to a change in discharge status. The monetary requests in plaintiffs Complaint are for “pain and suffering” resulting from the claimed incident of sexual harassment. See id. at 8. Plaintiff does not claim that he was illegally discharged and is owed back pay related to his service or discharge. Nor may plaintiffs request for a change in his military records be entertained by this court as a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06 (2006). The APA permits review of final agency action that seeks equitable relief other than money damages. 5 U.S.C. § 702. However, plaintiffs claim, viewed as an APA claim, does not fall within the jurisdiction of this court. See Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); McNabb v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 759, 767 Options: A. holding that the board does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim which it previously adjudicated unless new and material evidence is presented B. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia C. holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration D. holding that the district court properly declined to consider an eighth amendment argument because section 3582c does not grant jurisdiction to consider extraneous resentencing issues E. holding that the uscfc does not have apa jurisdiction to consider nonmonetary suits to correct military records

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the uscfc does not have apa jurisdiction to consider nonmonetary suits to correct military records
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: count does not remove the circuit court’s jurisdiction over a misdemeanor count when the misdemeanor count arises from the same incident as the felony count.” 897 So.2d at 405. I agree with the State that the misdemeanor DUI charge upon which Marshall is now to be sentenced arises out of the same incident as did the felony DUI charge upon which Marshall was originally convicted. I therefore concur in the result reached by the main opinion. See also Davis v. State, 806 So.2d 404, 409 n. 1 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (Shaw, J., concurring in the result and noting that “it would appear that a fourth DUI offense, in the absence of proof of three previous DUI offenses, necessarily arises from the same act that gave rise to the felony DUI charge”); Hankins v. State, 989 So.2d 610 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). 2 . If Justice Lyons's description of the Options: A. holding that dui conviction merges with aggravat ed assault by vehicle while dui conviction B. holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony C. holding that prior dui conviction could be used to enhance an offense to felony even though defendant did not have appointed counsel where defendant could not have been imprisoned for more than six months and was not in fact imprisoned D. holding that the state had the burden of proving the defendants two prior convictions in order to obtain the felony dui conviction E. holding that the defendant was not guilty of felony dui because the state was unable to prove that the defendant had three prior dui convictions but remanding the case to the circuit court for resentencing without reference to any potential jurisdictional problem

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendant was not guilty of felony dui because the state was unable to prove that the defendant had three prior dui convictions but remanding the case to the circuit court for resentencing without reference to any potential jurisdictional problem
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: An Eligible Employee will become a Participant by electing to defer Compensation in accordance with Section 3.1 and such procedures as may be established from time to time by the Committee (or its designee). An Eligible Employee who is hired during a Plan Year may not participate in the Plan until the commencement of the next Plan Year. An individual who, at any time, ceases to be an Eligible Employee, other than an Eligible Employee who (a) becomes employed by an Affiliated Company that is not a Participating Company or (b) is transferred to an international assignment, will continue to be eligible to defer Compensation until the end of the Plan Year in which he or she ceases to be an Eligible Employee, and no future Deferrals will be allowed until such time as the individual again becomes an Eligible Employee. In such a case, the individual will remain a Participant with respect to amounts already deferred but not yet withdrawn or distributed. A Participant will remain a Participant until all amounts to which he or she is entitled under the Plan have been paid.

assistant: Participations
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: 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), or by the requirements of abstention, which keep us from interfering with pending custody proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979) (“We are unwilling to conclude that state processes are unequal to the task of accommodating the various interests and deciding the constitutional questions that may arise in child-welfare litigation.”); see also Morrow v. Winslow, 94 F.3d 1386, 1397 (10th Cir.1996) (applying abstention to state adoption proceedings). We therefore have no jurisdiction to inquire into the constitutionality of the state court proceedings Gordon challenges. See Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). To the extent Gordon claims his Options: A. holding that a plaintiffs federal action seeking to vacate a state court judgment was a de facto appeal and thus barred under the rookerfeldman doctrine B. holding that a challenge by taxpayers and property owners to the issuance of municipal bonds was barred by a judgment entered in a prior action C. holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman D. holding that even if the plaintiffs independent claim was inextricably linked to the state court decision preclusion law was the correct solution to challenge the federal claim not rookerfeldman E. holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman
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: court recognized, however, [that the fact] ‘[t]hat the agreement is required does not make it unenforceable, absent other factors.’ ... The trial court did not find oppression or surprise, and we agree. The stand-alone arbitration agreement was not hidden, but prominently featured as part of the employment application, and there are no ‘other indicia of procedural unconscionability.’ The adhesive nature of the agreement[, however,] is evidence of some degree of procedural un-conscionability,” citing Ajamian v. CantorCO2e, L.P., 203 Cal.App.4th 771, 797, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 773 (2012)). (5) Whether the Arbitration Agreement is Substantively Unconscionable The foregoing analysis indicates that the arbitration agreement was somewhat unconscionable procedurally. Cf. Nagrampa, 469 F.3d at 1284 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the court can find that it is Options: A. holding that procedural unconscionability is properly evaluated at the time a contract is negotiated B. holding the jury waiver invalid where waiver was inconspicuous appeared to be nonnegotiable and there was unequal bargaining power C. holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish procedural unconscionability since he had a reasonable opportunity to consider the agreement and the arbitration clause was clearly set forth in the contract D. holding that there was only minimal procedural unconscionability despite defendants overwhelming bargaining power its concession that the contract was nonnegotiable and its drafting of the contract E. recognizing unconscionability as a generally available contract defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was only minimal procedural unconscionability despite defendants overwhelming bargaining power its concession that the contract was nonnegotiable and its drafting of the contract
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: offender proceeding. The State does not allege the appointment of counsel would have created any delay. No continuance would have been necessary because standby counsel was familiar with the case. Lastly, Koehler had failed miserably as defense counsel during the battery trial and there was no reason to believe he would have fared any better during the habitual proceeding." Id. at 199. The Court further observed that "(It would be illogical to bar all opportunity for reasserting one's right to counsel onee a defendant realizes his mistake in proceeding pro se." Id. In the case at bar, we first note that there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the Koehler factors. This alone supports reversal. See Dowell v. State, 557 N.E.2d 1063, 1068 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 861, Options: A. holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial B. holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen C. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint D. holding that trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying defendants request to have standby counsel conduct his closing argument E. holding that the bia abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when it failed to consider the argument before it

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trial court abused its discretion in summarily denying defendants request to have standby counsel conduct his closing argument
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: it is “background” evidence. Id. at 88. The admission of character evidence on the rationale that it is “background” evidence helpful to a jury conflicts with the proscription of Rule 404(b) — character evidence is not admissible as an “other purpose” under the rule. Id.; Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 404(b). SAME TRANSACTION CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE “Same transaction contextual evidence” of other crimes is admissible as an exception to the propensity rule where several crimes are intermixed, blended with one another, or so connected that they form an indivisible criminal transaction and full proof by testimony, whether direct or circumstantial, of any one of them cannot be made without showing the others. Mayes, 816 S.W.2d at 86 n. 4; see also Taylor v. State, 420 S.W.2d 601, 605 (Tex.Crim.App.1967) (<HOLDING>). The exception exists because in narrating the Options: A. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense B. holding that the trial court should have considered in mitigation the fact that burgess was the only one of six participants in the crime two of whom admitted that they participated in the crime who was charged with and prosecuted for the murder C. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless D. holding that the trial court had properly granted prices motion for new trial because while the state properly introduced identification testimony from a police officer who was not a witness to the offense it improperly elicited testimony that the witness was in fact a police officer who knew the defendant from working in his neighborhood E. holding that testimony that taylor who was charged with the murder of lucia etter had also killed fritz etter who was riding in the same pickup as lucia was properly admitted because the other offense was part of the case on trial or blended or closely interwoven therewith

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that testimony that taylor who was charged with the murder of lucia etter had also killed fritz etter who was riding in the same pickup as lucia was properly admitted because the other offense was part of the case on trial or blended or closely interwoven therewith
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: tinder , in its sole discretion , reserves the right to charge fees for the right to access or use virtual items and / or may distribute virtual items with or without charge .

assistant: Unilateral change
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: did not have to accept the testimony of the expert. Agent Zimmer then testified that he studied the VIN number from the victim’s ear, and determined that the vehicle had been manufactured in Japan and was later transported to a dealership located in Memphis, Tennessee. On appeal, Glover contends that the admission of Agent Zimmer’s testimony on an element of the crime was prejudicial. She argues that Agent Zimmer’s conclusion that the victim’s car was manufactured in Japan, and had therefore necessarily traveled in foreign commerce, should have been left for the jury to determine. Glover contends that Agent Zimmer usurped the role of the jury by substituting his conclusion for their own regarding the existen 4 L.Ed.2d 960 (1996); United States v. Dunn, 946 F.2d 615, 618 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ware, 914 F.2d at 1002-03 Options: A. recognizing that deadly weapon finding may be made even when weapon used is unknown B. holding that an expert may testify regarding the place of manufacture of a weapon in order to establish whether the weapon traveled in interstate commerce C. holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime D. holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon E. recognizing scarborough holding that commerce nexus satisfied upon showing that possessed firearm had traveled at some time in interstate commerce

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an expert may testify regarding the place of manufacture of a weapon in order to establish whether the weapon traveled in interstate commerce
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: have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, ask to examine the individual’s identification, and request consent to search his or her luggage-as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.” Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (citations omitted). In a nutshell, the rationale behind this general rule is “[t]he Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures; it does not proscribe voluntary cooperation.” Id. at 439, 111 S.Ct. 2382. However, the Supreme Court has further stated, “When a law enforcement officer claims authority to search a home under a warrant, he announces in effect that the occupant has no Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). But cf. United States v. Hawthorne, 982 F.2d Options: A. holding that court must examine totality of circumstances to determine whether substantial evidence supports issuance of search warrant B. holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent C. holding that the government bears the burden of proving voluntary consent under the totality of the circumstances D. holding threat to obtain a search warrant if individual does not consent to a search is just one factor in deciding whether the totality of the circumstances supports a voluntary consent finding E. recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances

assistant: The best answer is D. holding threat to obtain a search warrant if individual does not consent to a search is just one factor in deciding whether the totality of the circumstances supports a voluntary consent finding
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: membership in a protected group” is only available in “some extreme cases.” Rasiah v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted). The standard for proving a “pattern or practice” of persecution “is demanding and in substance requires a showing of regular and widespread persecution creating a reasonable likelihood of persecution of all persons in the group.” Id. at 5. Here, the only evidence submitted regarding a pattern or practice of persecution, independent of Ye’s discredited testimony regarding past persecution, was the 2012 State Department report on religious freedom in China. The report, which indicates that certain Christians can avoid persecution in certain areas under certain circumstances, is not enough. See Chen Qin v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Ye’s failure to tie the report to Options: A. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution B. holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible C. holding that country reports describing sporadic persecution of unauthorized christian activities did not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution in china D. holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals E. holding that state department report was not enough to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of christians in china

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state department report was not enough to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of christians in china
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: and adjectives asserted by counsel to ascertain the gravamen of a claim is similar to what courts already do in related contexts. See, e.g., Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F.2d 737, 747 (2d Cir.1979) (rejecting the argument that the plaintiff had wrongfully pleaded a simple breach of contract claim as a fraud claim in order to take advantage of the latter’s longer statute of limitations, and explaining that the case “does not involve an[ ] attempt to dress up a contract claim in a fraud suit of clothes .... [the plaintiff] clearly alleges fraud that was extraneous to the contract, rather than a fraudulent nonperformance of the contract itself’); Ruling and Order [doc. # 62], GJN Advisors, Inc. v. Woolrich, Inc., No. 3:09CV338(MRK) (D.Conn. Jan. 20, 2010) at 2-4 (<HOLDING>). Another exception to the economic loss Options: A. holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract B. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract C. holding that the plaintiff had not stated a claim for inducement to breach a contract where she had not alleged facts sufficient to show the existence of an enforceable underlying contract D. holding that although the plaintiff had successfully pleaded a breach of contract claim it had not adequately pleaded a violation of the connecticut unfair trade practices actwhich requires substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breachbecause when one puts the plaintiffs adjectives to the side and assesses the facts alleged this is a case in which the plaintiff alleges only that the defendant committed an intentional breach of contract E. holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although the plaintiff had successfully pleaded a breach of contract claim it had not adequately pleaded a violation of the connecticut unfair trade practices actwhich requires substantial aggravating circumstances attending the breachbecause when one puts the plaintiffs adjectives to the side and assesses the facts alleged this is a case in which the plaintiff alleges only that the defendant committed an intentional breach of contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one agreement which is binding upon the parties hereto, notwithstanding that both parties hereto are not signatories to the same counterpart.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: requirement. With this guidance from the Supreme Court and the court of criminal appeals in mind, we now turn to the case before us. Application It is undisputed that Roop’s blood was collected without a warrant. Therefore, the State bore the burden of proving that the blood draw was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. See Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 672-73. On appeal, the State makes several arguments in support of the constitutionality of the blood draw. First, the State argues that, under Texas’s implied consent and mandatory blood draw statutes, Roop has consented to have her blood collected under certain circumstances. - As discussed above, this argument was rejected by the court of criminal appeals, and we will not discuss -it further. See Villarreal, 475 S.W.3d at 800 (<HOLDING>). . Second, the State argues that “[t]he Options: A. holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added B. holding that implied consent that has been withdrawn or revoked by a suspect cannot serve as a substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the fourth amendment requires C. holding that independent of the implied consent law the fourth amendment requires an arrestees consent to be voluntary to justify a warrantless blood draw D. holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime E. holding that the fourth amendment does not require that a lawfully seized defendant must be advised that he is free to go before his consent to search will be recognized as voluntary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that implied consent that has been withdrawn or revoked by a suspect cannot serve as a substitute for the free and voluntary consent that the fourth amendment requires
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 provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed waived, amended, supplemented or modified by any party to this Agreement, unless such waiver, amendment, supplement or modification is in writing and signed by the authorized representative of each party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Northern Metal, 350 F.2d at 838 n. 12 (suit filed more than two years after cause of action arose not barred under Suits in Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C.App. § 745, because government’s not finally adjudicating plaintiffs administrative claim during two years since action arose prevented his timely filing suit). Unlike the plaintiff in an AEA suit who, before filing suit, has merely to wait six months after filing a claim with an agency, the plaintiff in Northern Metal, who submitted a claim pursuant to the dispute clause of his contract with the government, could not appeal to the courts until he had exhausted his administrative remedies. See Id. at 838 n. 11, n. 12. Finally, tolling may be appropriate when the defendant engages in “improper dilatory tactics,” see Core, 759 F.2d at 484 (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the government did not Options: A. holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction and rejecting a continuing violation theory B. holding limitations period for filing petition for postconviction relief runs from date of final judgment not from date of subsequent order revoking appeal bond C. holding that the limitations period in section 1640e runs from the date of consummation of the transaction D. holding that the thirty day removal period runs from the date of fdics plea in intervention and notice of substitution E. holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding fiveyear limitation period in 28 usc 2462 runs from date of predicate violation not from date of administrative assessment of sanction
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: upload , post , email , transmit , or otherwise make available any content that is unlawful , harmful , threatening , abusive , harassing , tortious , defamatory , vulgar , obscene , libelous , invasive of another 's privacy , hateful , or racially , ethnically , or otherwise objectionable ;

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: Except as disclosed in Schedule 3(k), since January 1, 2015, the Company has timely filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by it with the SEC pursuant to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act (all of the foregoing filed prior to the date hereof, and all exhibits included therein and financial statements, notes and schedules thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein being hereinafter referred to as the “ SEC Documents ”). The Company has delivered to the Buyers or their respective representatives true, correct and complete copies of the SEC Documents not available on the EDGAR system. As of their respective filing dates, the SEC Documents complied in all material respects with the requirements of the 1934 Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC promulgated thereunder applicable to the SEC Documents, and none of the SEC Documents, at the time they were filed with the SEC, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. As of their respective filing dates, the financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Documents complied as to form in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the published rules and regulations of the SEC with respect thereto. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles, consistently applied, during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”) (except (i) as may be otherwise indicated in such financial statements or the notes thereto, or (ii) in the case of unaudited interim statements, to the extent they may exclude footnotes or may be condensed or summary statements) and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its Subsidiaries as of the dates thereof and the results of its operations and cash flows for the periods then ended (subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal year-end audit adjustments which will not be material, either individually or in the aggregate). No other information provided by or on behalf of the Company to any of the Buyers which is not included in the SEC Documents, including, without limitation, information referred to in Section 2(d) of this Agreement or in the disclosure schedules to this Agreement, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstance under which they are or were made, not misleading.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 194, 117 S.Ct. 1984, 138 L.Ed.2d 373 (1997). This reasoning would not apply to a decision to make or to continue making new employer contributions in the form of employer stock, which would remain a matter of plan design. But this reasoning applies to the management or control of the existing assets at the time of the AES transaction. See King v. National Human Resource Committee, Inc., 218 F.3d 719, 724 (7th Cir.2000) (treating plan amendment as plan sponsor’s non-fiduciary action not subject to fiduciary standards, but treating decision about investment of existing plan assets as subject to ERISA fiduciary standards); Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955, 959-60 (N.D.Ohio 1998), ajfd sub nom. Chao v. Hall Holding Co., 285 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Those existing Plan assets held in the form Options: A. holding that an esops purchase of stock at inflated prices with cash already transferred to the esop was an action involving management of assets and was subject to fiduciary standards rejecting the argument that the purchase was only the act of a plan sponsor B. recognizing cause of action where plaintiffs allege fraud in inducing not the purchase of the bonds but their retention after purchase C. holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife D. holding that a plan sponsor was an erisa fiduciary to the extent that it was vested with and exercised discretionary control E. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the instrument

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an esops purchase of stock at inflated prices with cash already transferred to the esop was an action involving management of assets and was subject to fiduciary standards rejecting the argument that the purchase was only the act of a plan sponsor
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 insurance policy of the Company and each Company Fund is set forth on Schedule 4.19 . True, correct and complete copies of such insurance policies have been made available to Buyer. All such policies are in full force and effect, all premiums due and payable thereunder have been paid, and no written notice of cancellation or termination has been received with respect to any such policy and, to the Knowledge of the Company, there exists no event, occurrence, condition or act (including the Transactions) that, with the giving of notice, the lapse of time or the happening of any other event or condition, would entitle any insurer to terminate or cancel any such policies. The Company and the Company Funds, as applicable, have complied with the terms and provisions of such policies and bonds in all material respects. There are no pending insurance claims for the Company and the Company Funds.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as the type of unequivocal and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity that Plaintiff needs in order to maintain this action. See Nordic Vill., 503 U.S. at 33, 112 S.Ct. 1011 (“Waivers of the Government’s sovereign immunity, to be effective, must be unequivocally expressed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Significantly, courts have long held that the mere fact that Congress expressly permits a certain claim to be brought in federal court does not suffice to show that Congress has abrogated the defense of sovereign immunity to that claim. See Munaco v. United States, 522 F.3d 651, 653 n. 3 (6th Cir.2008) (“[JJurisdictional statutes ... do not operate as waivers of sovereign immunity.” (citation omitted)); see also, e.g., Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 981 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Washington Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Options: A. holding that 28 usc 1361 which provides that district courts shall have original jurisdiction to compel an officer or employee of the united states to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity B. holding that federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim against the united states or one of its agencies absent a clear waiver of sovereign immunity C. holding that statutes conferring general jurisdiction including 28 usc 1331 do not waive sovereign immunity D. holding that 28 usc 1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity E. holding that 28 usc 1331 which states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution laws or treaties of the united states does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 28 usc 1331 which states that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the constitution laws or treaties of the united states does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity
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: we reserve the right to terminate your right to access and use the services if you violate these terms or any other terms or policies referenced herein , or if you otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All federal, and material state, local and foreign tax returns, reports and statements required to be filed (after giving effect to any extension granted in the time for filing) by the Borrower or any member of the Controlled Group (hereafter collectively called the “ Tax Group ”) have been filed with the appropriate Governmental Authority in all jurisdictions in which such returns, reports, and statements are required to be filed, and all taxes (which are material in amount) and other impositions due and payable have been timely paid prior to the date on which any fine, penalty, interest, late charge or loss may be added thereto for non-payment thereof except (a) where contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings or (b) to the extent the failure to pay such, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Borrower nor any member of the Tax Group has given, or been requested to give, a waiver of the statute of limitations relating to the payment of any federal, state, local or foreign taxes or other impositions. Proper and accurate amounts have been withheld by the Borrower and all other members of the Tax Group from their employees for all periods to comply in all material respects with the tax, social security and unemployment withholding provisions of applicable federal, state, local and foreign law. Timely payment of all sales and use taxes required by applicable law have been made by the Borrower and all other members of the Tax Group, except to the extent that the failure to pay such, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: of coverage prevented an insured from taking steps to prevent a loss is sufficient to support a jury finding that the misrepresentation was a producing cause of damages.”). Nevertheless, Defendants insist that Plaintiffs claim must be dismissed because she does not allege that Walker provided any false Information — and, accordingly, that she does not adequately allege the second element of a negligent misrepresentation claim. (MTD at 22.) “[T]o prove negligent misrepresentation,” they claim, “a plaintiff must establish that the defendant gave false in formation”; “[misleading but not false information is insufficient....” (MTD at 22.) While at least one Texas court has agreed with Defendants’ contention, see Continental Savings Ass’n v. Collins, 814 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex.App.1991) (<HOLDING>), that court cited no precedent and relied Options: A. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient B. holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false C. holding that the essential element for determining whether or not a claim was a misrepresentation claim within the meaning of section 2680h was reliance by the plaintiff upon the false information D. holding failure to disclose may constitute supplying false information to support negligent misrepresentation claim where such failure breaches a statutory duty E. holding that a defamation claim cannot be sustained for truthful information in a credit report even if the information reported supports misleading inferences

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the furnishing of misleading information cannot support a claim for negligent misrepresentation the information must be false
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: (“An employee may be prevented under his negative covenant from revealing trade secrets even where the term of employment is at will, and has not been fixed for a definite period.”). A claim of tortious interference with a non-compete clause would not have to allege wrongful means if the new employer was aware of the clause and assisted or encouraged the employer to violate it to its 'benefit. Cf. Lockheed Martin Corp., 725 N.Y.S.2d at 725 (stating that the wrongful means standard applies when “the allegations concern at-will employees not bound by covenants not to compete”). The Contract specifies that Barbagallo was an at-will employee. Contract Sec. 2.1; see also Wright v. Cayan, 817 F.2d 999, 1002 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 853, 108 S.Ct. 157, 98 L.Ed.2d 112 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Sabetay v. Sterling Drug. Inc., 69 N.Y.2d Options: A. holding that offer of atwill employment is valid consideration to support an arbitration agreement B. holding that under arkansas law employment is atwill unless personnel manual or employment agreement contains express provision that employee shall not be discharged except for cause C. holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination D. holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly E. holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly