flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule or Law, or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the Transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any Party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the Parties as closely as possible in an acceptable manner to the end that Transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the extent possible.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and not contradicted by external evidence, there can almost never be a finding of clear error.” United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437, 441 (3d Cir.1997). As a result, the District Court did not clearly err when it found that the window was tint-free. Nor did the District Court err in concluding that the officers had a reasonable suspicion to stop Davis. The officers observed odd behavior through the front window—an exchange, shocked expressions, and tossing motions. Davis and Blackshear rapidly left the car and began walking away, the latter failing to close the car door. And the activity took place in a high-crime area. The officers thus had a reasonable suspicion that a crime might be afoot. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868; Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124, 120 S.Ct. 673 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Bonner, 363 F.3d Options: A. recognizing presence in a high crime area unprovoked flight and nervous evasive behavior as factors supporting a reasonable suspicion B. holding that nervous evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion C. holding nervous behavior and inconsistent story justified reasonable suspicion and subsequent search D. holding that nervous evasive behavior such as flight is a relevant factor in an examination of reasonable suspicion E. holding that in a high crime area unprovoked headlong flight from police can form the basis for reasonable suspicion under terry

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing presence in a high crime area unprovoked flight and nervous evasive behavior as factors supporting a reasonable suspicion
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: Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a March 30, 2010 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision that found there was no clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) in a September 6, 1973 rating decision (“September 1973 Rating Decision”) that granted total disability resulting from individual unemployability (“TDIU”), effective June 27, 1973. Peterson v. Shinseki, No. 10-2433, 2012 WL 87578, at *1 (Vet.App. Jan. 12, 2012). In February 2006, Mr. Peterson sought to revise the September 1973 Rating Decision on the basis of CUE, and on March 30, 2010, the Board determined that the September 1973 Rating Decision was not the result of CUE. The Veterans Court agreed, reasoning that the alleged error was not outcome-determinative. See Willsey v. Peake, 535 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (citing Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 310 Options: A. holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision B. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision C. holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case D. holding that cue required a showing that the alleged error in the challenged decision would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made E. recognizing that cue may be based on a showing that there was no evidence before the adjudicator that could have supported a denial of the claim on the merits that is that all of the evidence militated in support of the claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that cue required a showing that the alleged error in the challenged decision would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time it was made
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: trial.” The court repeatedly made clear that none of these measures had anything to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendants, and it confirmed several times that the veni-re members understood the instructions. Appellants now claim that these extra security measures — especially in combination with the jury’s sequestration and anonymity-denied them a fair trial by signaling to the jurors that the defendants were dangerous and most likely guilty. They correctly point out that the constitutional presumption of innocence may be undermined by the physical indicia of guilt; criminal defendants do have a right to be free of court-imposed physical appearances that are unfairly suggestive of their guilt. See, e.g., Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, this “does not mean ... Options: A. holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population B. holding unconstitutional a requirement that defendant appear in prison garb at trial C. holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits D. holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute E. holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding unconstitutional a requirement that defendant appear in prison garb at trial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement, the RSUs shall cease to be restricted and shall, subject to achievement of the Performance Goal set forth below, become non-forfeitable (thereafter being referred to as “ Vested Shares ”) in [equal] installment[s] on [each of] ([each a] “ Vesting Date ”); provided, however, that a whole number of RSUs shall vest on each Vesting Date and the Company shall accordingly allocate such RSUs across the Vesting Dates as evenly as possible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except as set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement, none of the RSUs shall become Vested Shares on any Vesting Date unless (the “ Performance Goal ”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: argued that the murder-for-hire statute under which he was found guilty, 18 U.S.C. § 1958 — which sets a punishment of “death or life imprisonment, or ... [a] fine[] [of] not more than $250,000, or both” if death results from an attempted murder-for-hire — does not prescribe a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment because it appears to authorize a sentence of simply a fine in lieu of any term of imprisonment. Judge Chin rejected this argument, concluding that the statute did not permit any discretion and that life imprisonment was a mandatory minimum, and that even if there were discretion to depart, he would not exercise that discretion to do so. Although we strongly doubt the merits of Marmolejas’s statutory argument, see United States v. James, 289 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>), we need not reach the question because of Options: A. holding discretion of district court for sentencing is explicitly limited in this case by the statute which provides that life imprisonment may be imposed only if death results from the defendants actions and if the jury directs the imposition of the sentence B. holding that this court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in situations where a defendant may possibly be sentenced to life imprisonment or death C. holding that this court has jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in cases involving a sentence of life imprisonment or death D. holding that 18 usc 1959a1 which provides for a punishment of death or life imprisonment or a fine under this title or both id emphases added provides a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment E. holding life sentence mandatory under 21 usc 841b and district court could not depart from the mandatory life sentence unless government made a motion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 18 usc 1959a1 which provides for a punishment of death or life imprisonment or a fine under this title or both id emphases added provides a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment
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 consent, approval, authorization or order of, registration or filing with, or notice to any governmental authority or court is required under applicable law in connection with the execution, delivery and performance by Seller or Guarantor of this Agreement, any Transaction Request, Purchase Confirmation and the Program Agreements.

assistant: Approvals
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: contends that if we uphold the award of guardianship as a permanent plan, “then respondent’s compliance with OCDSS and court demands becomes irrelevant to whether or not reunification efforts would be futile.” Respondent-father counters that OCDSS’s argument is circular; we believe it is more properly characterized as backwards, probably because OCDSS has changed its position in this appeal from its position in the trial court. On appeal, OCDSS now supports the trial court’s decision to cease reunification efforts. At the hearing, OCDSS recommended that reunification efforts continue. In some instances, parties may be judicially estopped from taking inconsistent positions at different points in the same litigation. See In re Maynard, 116 N.C. App. 616, 621, 448 S.E.2d 871, 874 (1994) (<HOLDING>), disc. rev. denied, 339 N.C. 613, 454 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that even though the declarant was not in danger she was experiencing an ongoing emergency because she did not know where her children were and she feared for their safety B. holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children C. holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children D. holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children E. holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York sitting in New York County and of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York sitting in New York County, and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to any Loan Document, or for recognition or enforcement of any judgment, and each of the parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the jurisdiction of such courts and agrees that all claims in respect of any such action, litigation or proceeding may be heard and determined in such New York State court or, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Law, in such Federal court. Each of the parties hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action, litigation or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by Law. Nothing in this Agreement or in any other Loan Document shall affect any right that the Administrative Agent, any Lender or any L/C Issuer may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document against any Borrower or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 9.10 .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement and the other Transaction Agreements (and each of the agreements contemplated hereby and thereby) set forth the entire agreement and understanding among the Parties as to the subject matter hereof, and merge and supersede all prior discussions, agreements, and understandings of every kind and nature among them. No Party shall be bound by any condition, definition, warranty or representation, other than as expressly set forth or provided for in the Transaction Agreements. The Parties acknowledge that no Party, nor anyone else acting on any such Party’s behalf, has made any promise or representation regarding the Transaction Agreements except as expressly stated herein or therein.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in entering into this release , you expressly waive any protections ( whether statutory or otherwise ) to the extent permitted by applicable law that would otherwise limit the coverage of this release to include only those claims which you may know or suspect to exist in your favor at the time of agreeing to this release .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: convictions that qualified as “violent felonies” under the ACCA and was therefore subject to a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). The district court sentenced Woods to 235 months. One of Woods’s three ACCA predicate offenses was a conviction for attempted burglary, which at the time qualified as a violent felony under the ACCA’s residual clause because it created a “serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). In Johnson, however, the Supreme Court held the ACCA’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. 135 S.Ct. at 2557. The government concedes that under Johnson, Woods’s conviction for attempted burglary is no longer a predicate offense under the ACCA. We may authorize a second or successive petition unde r.2015) (<HOLDING>); In re Rivero, 797 F.3d 986, 989 (11th Options: A. holding that cage has been made retroactive to cases on collateral review B. holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive C. holding that until the supreme court rules otherwise apprendi is not a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review that was previously unavailable D. 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 E. 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

assistant: The best answer is E. 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
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: touch a minor constituted a violent act, the State could not demonstrate a prima facie case that defendant violated an “express” probation condition, and the VOP conviction cannot stand. See State v. Austin, 165 Vt. at 398, 685 A.2d at 1082. ¶ 17. Our probation condition precedent provides no direct analogy to the case at hand. In prior cases where this Court contemplated violations of the probation condition prohibiting “violent” and “threatening” behavior (here Condition N), we addressed the terms separately, as distinct types of action. The application and interpretation of this condition has generally been challenged in cases where the State alleges that the probationer engaged in threatening behavior that was primarily or exclusively speech. See, e.g., Johnstone, 2013 VT 57, ¶ 17 (<HOLDING>); Sanville, 2011 VT 34, ¶ 12 (holding that Options: A. holding that defendant had not violated probation condition prohibiting violent or threatening behavior when he was simply mouthing off to his girlfriend and did not intend to put his probation officer in fear of harm B. holding that probation is not a sentence C. holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken D. holding that a defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel at a probation revocation hearing when he admitted to violating the terms of his probation and refused the district courts offer to appoint counsel E. holding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served as a condition of probation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendant had not violated probation condition prohibiting violent or threatening behavior when he was simply mouthing off to his girlfriend and did not intend to put his probation officer in fear of harm
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS AND ANY CLAIMS, CONTROVERSY, DISPUTE OR CAUSES OF ACTION (WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR TORT OR OTHERWISE) BASED UPON, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT (OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS) SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY PRINCIPLE OF CONFLICTS OF LAW THAT COULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANY OTHER LAW, EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO GAMING LAWS, IN WHICH CASE MARYLAND LAW SHALL 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT, EXCEPT AS MAY OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SECTIONS 3.3 AND 9.3 HEREOF), ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE OTHER DOCUMENTS EXECUTED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENT OR TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY SHALL ONLY BE BROUGHT IN THE COMPETENT COURTS OF DENVER COUNTY, COLORADO OR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

assistant: Jurisdictions
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 Administrative Agent shall have received a certificate in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Administrative Agent from a senior financial officer or such other officer acceptable to the Administrative Agent of the Borrower and each Guarantor certifying that, before and after giving effect to the initial Borrowings made hereunder on the Effective Date, the Borrower and each such other Guarantor is Solvent (assuming with respect to each Guarantor, that the fraudulent conveyance savings language contained in the Guaranty applicable to such Guarantor will be given full effect).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with Markby was not similar to Seltzer’s current position, as it was an administrative assistant position. (Id. ¶ 8). Also, Dresdner did not hire anyone for the Markby position; the floater who had been working for him simply remained in the position. (Id.). c. The Record As a Whole Considering the evidence as a whole, and resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor, I conclude that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs age was a factor in her dismissal. The only admissible, probative evidence of age discrimination is the bare fact that plaintiff was 72 years old when she was discharged. By itself, this evidence is not enough to defeat summary judgment. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 517, 113 S.Ct. 2742 (<HOLDING>); James, 238 F.3d at 157; Pullin v. Potter, No. Options: A. holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination B. holding that evidence of egregiousness is required for punitive damages since otherwise every employment discrimination claim could include a punitive damage award because every employment discrimination plaintiff must demonstrate an intentional unlawful discrimination C. holding in the discrimination context that a plaintiff may challenge incidents which occurred outside the statute of limitations period if the various acts of discrimination constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination D. holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii E. holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination
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 any provision of this Letter Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, the validity and enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions of this Letter Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby and the parties will attempt to agree upon a valid and enforceable provision that is a reasonable substitute therefor, and upon so agreeing, shall incorporate such substitute provision in this Letter Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each of the Parties hereto and must expressly state that it is the intention of each of the Parties hereto to amend the Agreement. No breach of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed waived unless the waiver is in writing signed by a duly authorized representative of the waiving party. Waiver of any one breach shall not be deemed a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference. Any capitalized term not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to it in the Lease (including the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Third Amendment, as applicable).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that they were not. See Oates, 698 P.2d at 816 (government-installed beeper in a 110 Ib. drum of phenyl-acetic acid purchased from a chemical company was a search under Colorado Constitution); Sporleder, 666 P.2d at 139-40 (governmental installation of a pen register is a search under Colorado Constitution); Charnes v. DiGiacomo, 200 Colo. 94, 98-99, 612 P.2d 1117, 1120-21 (1980)(governmental seizure of bank ree-ords violated the Colorado Constitution). Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution applies to the case before us. We therefore distinguish Place, and our recent ruling in People v. Ortega, 34 P.3d 986, 2001 Colo. LEXIS 783 (Colo.2001), both of which were decided under the Fourth Amendment and did not involve a prolonged traffic stop without reasonable suspicion (<HOLDING>); People v. Unruh, 713 P.2d 370, 377-78 Options: A. holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search B. holding that a dog sniff search of a safe taken by a burglar from the defendants home was a search C. holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest D. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search E. holding that dog sniff of dryer vent of house was not a search

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a dog sniff of a federal express package was a search
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 gave appropriate cautionary instructions, and the circumstances are not such as to negate the effectiveness of those instructions. Thus, the court’s rulings on these statements readily survive plain error review. See Olmo, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Moreover, even if the district court erred in admitting the radio broadcast evidence, it was harmless. Aside from Inge’s broadcast, there was substantial evidence to establish that Inge, McKee, and Joseph Donato had expressed them committed opposition to paying the “war tax.” App. 321, 336-37, 531-33, 624-25, 650-52. Furthermore, Defendants’ conceded their beliefs about the immorality of the federal tax system and their self-exemption from the revenue laws. See Virgin Islands v. Joseph, 964 F.2d 1380-90 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, there was no plain error in Options: A. holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question B. holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error C. holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue D. holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review E. holding that admission of evidence in violation of confrontation clause was harmless because it did not relate to the contested issue before jury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that admission of evidence in violation of confrontation clause was harmless because it did not relate to the contested issue before jury
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, together with the Master Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with regard to the matters set forth herein. This Agreement shall supersede any prior written or oral agreements between the Parties concerning the subject matter herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appellant]”). Because Mr. Grant challenged the arbi-trability of Ms. Rotolante’s claims at the outset of the arbitration proceedings, his motion to vacate was not subject to the three-month statute of limitations under 9 U.S.C. § 12. See Solvay Pharm., Inc. v. Duramed Pharm., Inc., 442 F.3d 471, 478 n. 6 (6th Cir.2006) (noting that challenge to arbitrability may manifest itself as attack on arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) or as motion resisting petition to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C § 4 when challenge occurs after arbitration, but “[w]hen the challenge occurs prior to the arbitration, there is no question that the issue is one of arbitrability, for no award yet exists to be challenged”); see also Lucey v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 305 Fed.Appx. 875 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Lukens Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of Options: A. holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants B. holding that contractors failure to file motion to vacate arbitrators decision did not waive challenge to written arbitration clause as unconscionable where contractor raised objection to arbitration and validity of provision C. holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause D. holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause E. holding that a later concession to strike an unconscionable term does not change the fact that the arbitration agreement as written is unconscionable and contrary to public policy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that contractors failure to file motion to vacate arbitrators decision did not waive challenge to written arbitration clause as unconscionable where contractor raised objection to arbitration and validity of provision
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 one or more counterparts (including by facsimile or electronic .pdf submission), each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered (by telecopy or otherwise) to the other Party, it being understood that both Parties need not sign 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: 1020, 119 S.Ct. 1257, 143 L.Ed.2d 353 (1999); United States v. Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339, 341 (2d Cir.1998) (upholding § 2262(a)(1) as it falls within Lopez’s first category); United States v. Wright, 128 F.3d 1274, 1276 (8th Cir.1997)(upholding § 2262(a)(1) as it “falls within Congress’s authority to ‘keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses.’ ”) (quoting Caminetti [v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917) ]), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1053, 118 S.Ct. 1376, 140 L.Ed.2d 524 (1998); United States v. Gluzman, 953 F.Supp. 84, 89 (S.D.N.Y.1997)(upholding § 2261(a)(1) as it falls within Lopez’s first category), aff'd, 154 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.1998). Id. at 571-72. See also United States v. Henry, 429 F.3d 603, 619 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Based upon the foregoing, this Court Options: A. holding that double jeopardy precludes dual convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of separate ammunition because section 790231 florida statutes prohibits possession of any firearm ammunition or electric weapon or device emphasis in original B. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy C. holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce D. holding that the defendants stipulation that the gun had moved in interstate commerce was sufficient evidence to support his conviction under 18 usc 922g1 E. holding that conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 usc 922g is valid under the commerce clause as long as the ammunition had previously moved in interstate commerce even though the possession did not have a substantial affect on same

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 usc 922g is valid under the commerce clause as long as the ammunition had previously moved in interstate commerce even though the possession did not have a substantial affect on same
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.01 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all of the Obligations.

assistant: Survival
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 shall pay to Agent and Lenders all reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred by Agent and Lenders in connection with this First Amendment (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements and filing and recording costs).

assistant: Expenses
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: (i) There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or, to the knowledge of any Loan Party, threatened against such Loan Party or any Subsidiary of such Loan Party at law or in equity before any Official Body which individually or in the aggregate may could reasonably be expected to result in any Material Adverse Change. None of the Loan Parties or any Subsidiaries of any Loan Party is in violation of any order, writ, injunction or any decree of any Official Body which may result in any Material Adverse Change.

assistant: Litigations
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 definite promise that the parties would enter into a legally executable lease that would induce detrimental reliance by Andersen. See Moore, 2007 WL 2331021, at *6-7 (rejecting a landlord’s claim that a tenant’s promise that he “will start putting the package together ... [the tenant] would like to get this in the June 17th meeting for approval.... This is a busy time for everyone ..., but lets get this deal done, behind us, and open!” was a “clear and definite promise”). Andersen argues that Kranz’ internal e-mail to Gower on February 25 was a clear and definite promise that FCOA would sign the lease. However, this cannot constitute a clear and definite promise because the promisee must be aware of the promisor’s promise. See Johnson v. Pattison, 185 N.W.2d 790, 795-96 (Iowa 1971) (<HOLDING>). Even if Kranz’ e-mail constituted a clear and Options: A. holding that debtor as grantor and trustee of a trust that held legal title to the property held a sufficient equitable interest in the property to claim it as exempt homestead where she resided on the property prepetition with the intent to maintain it as her primary residence B. holding that promissory estoppel existed when the grantor agreed to use the property for only residential purposes took title with knowledge of that promise and the grantee relied upon that agreement C. holding that any promise involving real property is enforceable only if that promise meets the requirements of the statute D. holding when a deed provides grantee would take subject to the state of facts which a personal inspection or accurate survey would disclose grantee has no claim against grantor for power line easement E. holding that where grantee was named as trustee without identification of the beneficiaries or the nature and purposes of the trust and no trust agreement of record was identified the grantee received fee simple title

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that promissory estoppel existed when the grantor agreed to use the property for only residential purposes took title with knowledge of that promise and the grantee relied upon that agreement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice necessary under this Agreement shall be addressed to the Company in care of its Treasurer and a copy to the General Counsel, each copy addressed to the principal Participant office of the Company and to the Participant at the address appearing in the personnel records of the Company for the Participant or to either party at such other address as either party hereto may hereafter designate in writing to the other. Any such notice shall be deemed effective upon receipt thereof by the addressee.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: amazon reserves the right to refuse service , terminate accounts , terminate your rights to use amazon services , remove or edit content , or cancel orders in its sole discretion .

assistant: Content removal, 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: becoming final, and the filing of his first state habeas petition. Ramos offered no justification for this 240-day delay, which is substantially longer than the 90-day period in which the courts presume timeliness under California law. See In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311, 317 (1998) (“[A] habeas corpus petition is not entitled to a presumption of timeliness if it is filed more than 90 days after the final due date for the filing of appellant’s reply brief on the direct appeal.”). Without the required justification for his delay, Ramos’s state petitions were not “properly filed,” making the time they were pending before the California courts ineligible for statutory tolling. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1047 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Without statutory tolling of the time his Options: A. holding that an unexplained gap of 101 days between filing of state habeas petitions made petition untimely under california law and not subject to statutory tolling B. recognizing that a habeas petitioner may be entitled to tolling during a second round of petitions but holding that the statute is not tolled between rounds C. holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time D. holding that california supreme courts denial of habeas petition becomes final thirty days after filing E. holding that the filing of a first federal habeas petition is not an application for other collateral review under the tolling provision of 2244d

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an unexplained gap of 101 days between filing of state habeas petitions made petition untimely under california law and not subject to statutory tolling
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: tripadvisor accepts no liability for travelers who are refused entry onto a flight or into any country because of the traveler 's failure to carry the travel documents required by any airline , authority , or country , including countries the traveler may just be passing through en route to his or her destination .

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 execution, delivery and performance of this Amendment and any other agreements or instruments executed in connection herewith and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby (i) are within the authority of Borrower and Guarantors, (ii) have been duly authorized by all necessary proceedings on the part of the Borrower and Guarantors, (iii) do not and will not conflict with or result in any breach or contravention of any provision of law, statute, rule or regulation to which Borrower or any Guarantor is subject or any judgment, order, writ, injunction, license or permit applicable to Borrower or any Guarantor, (iv) do not and will not conflict with or constitute a default (whether with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both) under any provision of the partnership agreement, articles of incorporation or other charter documents or bylaws of, or any agreement or other instrument binding upon, Borrower or any Guarantor or any of their respective properties, (v) do not and will not result in or require the imposition of any lien or other encumbrance on any of the properties, assets or rights of Borrower or any Guarantor and (vi) do not require the approval or consent of any Person other than those already obtained and delivered to the Agent.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if a provision is found unenforceable , the remaining provisions of the terms will remain in full effect and an enforceable term will be substituted reflecting our intent as closely as possible .

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: All notices, requests and other communications to any party hereunder shall be given in the manner prescribed in Section 10.02 of the Credit Agreement with respect to the Administrative Agent at its notice address therein and with respect to any Guarantor at the address set forth below or such other address or telecopy number as such party may hereafter specify for such purpose by notice to the Administrative Agent in accordance with the provisions of such Section 10.02 .

assistant: Notices