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: omitted); United States v. Iglesias, 915 F.2d 1524, 1528 (11th Cir.1990) (“One who has been indicted as a principal may be convicted on evidence showing only that he aided and abetted the offense.”); Quigg v. Crist, 616 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1980) (“[T]he giving of an aiding and abetting instruction does not violate due process where the state has abolished the distinction between principals and accessories, and where there is evidence before the jury to support the instruction.”); United States v. Beardslee, 609 F.2d 914, 919 (8th Cir.1979) (rejecting the argument that defendant’s due process rights were violated by an aiding and abetting instruction when the indictment did not explicitly charge him with aiding and abetting); Glass v. United States, 328 F.2d 754, 756 (7th Cir.1964) (<HOLDING>); People v. Garrison, 47 Cal.3d 746, 254 Options: A. recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion B. holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors are chargeable directly as principals C. recognizing aiding and abetting trespass D. holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting E. recognizing aiding and abetting conversion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors are chargeable directly as principals
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: at 489-90. Accordingly, the Court held that the officers investigating the case “had no due process duty to collect bloodstained articles found at the scene of the crime to preserve them for defendant’s use.” Id. at 490. C. While we recognize the rule that police officers generally have no duty to collect all potential evidence from a crime scene, we conclude that this rule is not absolute. We do not condone shoddy and inadequate police investigation procedures at the expense of a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial. In some eases, the State’s failure to gather evidence may amount to suppression of material evidence. See Bradley, at 491 (noting that police “might have a duty at some point to seize an item of evidence”); People v. Vigil, 718 P.2d 496, 503 (Colo.1986) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888, 890 Options: A. holding that the states duty to preserve evidence attaches at the time the state has gathered and taken possession of the evidence B. recognizing states duty to preserve relevant evidence where practical C. holding that government did not suppress evidence when defendant knew about the existence of the evidence and could obtain it through the exercise of reasonable diligence D. holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant E. recognizing that state agents may suppress evidence by failing to collect and preserve the evidence when performing routine procedures

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that state agents may suppress evidence by failing to collect and preserve the evidence when performing routine procedures
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 Event of Default occurs, the Company promises to pay all costs of enforcement and collection, including but not limited to, Holder’s attorneys’ fees, whether or not any action or proceeding is brought to enforce the provisions hereof.

assistant: Costs
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: CURIAM: Roman Saldivar-Vasquez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that the district court plainly erred in assessing him a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) due to his three prior Texas felony convictions for burglary of a habitation, in violation of Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1), which the district court characterized as crimes of violence. See United States v. Conde-Castaneda, 753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Saldivar-Velasquez argues that his Options: A. holding that 3002a is divisible and reiterating that offenses under 3002a1 qualify as generic burglary B. holding that a conviction under a divisible statute could not qualify as acca burglary pursuant to the modified categorical approach when there were no shepard documents to show that the crime of conviction was generic burglary C. holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person D. holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary E. holding that virginia burglary statute comes within definition of generic burglary

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 3002a is divisible and reiterating that offenses under 3002a1 qualify as generic burglary
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 receipt of any Severance Benefits pursuant to this Agreement is subject to Executive timely executing and not revoking a general waiver and release of employment related claims in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex A (the “ General Release and Waiver ”), which is incorporated by reference under this Agreement, which must become effective and irrevocable no later than the 60th day following the Separation Date (the “ Release Deadline ”). If the General Waiver and Release does not become effective and irrevocable by the Release Deadline, Executive will forfeit any right to any severance payments or benefits pursuant to this Agreement. In no event will any severance payments or benefits be paid or provided until the Release actually becomes effective and irrevocable. The General Release and Waiver may be altered by the Company from the form attached as Annex A only in order to address changes in applicable law affecting its terms.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: involved in criminal activity.” Whitaker v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 268, 274, 687 S.E.2d 733, 736 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Ewell v. Commonwealth, 254 Va. 214, 217, 491 S.E.2d 721, 722 (1997)). Reasonable suspicion “is more than an ‘unparticular-ized suspicion or “hunch.” ’ ” Bass v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 470, 475, 525 S.E.2d 921, 923 (2000) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). Nevertheless, it “requires only ‘some minimal level of objective justification.’ ” Branham v. Commonwealth, 283 Va. 273, 280, 720 S.E.2d 74, 78 (2012) (quoting I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1763, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)). The existence of reasonable suspicion permits a brief seizure “while .Ct. 1598, 1604, 170 L.Ed.2d 559 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Applying these principles, we conclude that Options: A. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest B. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same C. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for trespassing under state law D. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law E. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that probable cause existed to arrest for driving on a suspended license under state law
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: possession of a ' stolen automobile worth over $500. On June 1, 2016, the State amended the multiple bill of information to add another predicate conviction, a 2004 guilty plea to illegal possession of a stolen vehicle worth over $500 and theft over $500. 5 . The sentences imposed were twenly-five years at hard labor for home invasion; ten years for aggravated battery; and three years for domestic abuse, all to'run concurrently with each other and any other charge. 6 . La. R.S. 14:62.8(B) (2014) provides that "whoever commits the crime of home invasion shall be fined riot more than five thousand dollars and shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than one year nor more than thirty years.” See also State v. Ellis, 2012-0540, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 109 So.3d 944, 947 (<HOLDING>). 7 . La. R.S. 15:529.1 states "[t]he person Options: A. holding that where the language of the statute required the imposition of both confinement of which a portion could not be suspended and a fine the court had the ability to impose a fine and then suspend it B. holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine C. holding that a flat unconditional fine for 50 was a criminal sanction because the contemnor had no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance D. recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error E. holding that when a fine is paid there is a full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties of the law and that the fine cannot be reimbursed in order to punish the defendant instead with imprisonment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine
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 and you each agree that if you are a masquerade user located in the united states or canada , each of we and you may bring disputes against the other only on its or your own behalf , and not on behalf of any other person or entity , or any class of people .

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: 524 So.2d 403, 408 (Fla.1988) (an arrest is not admissible grounds for impeachment under Rule 90.610). Having found preserved error in the prosecution’s cross-examination of the witness Delafield, the question becomes whether the error was harmless. When taken together with a similar type of impeachment directed against defense witness Brazel, we cannot find that the state has met its burden of proving that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Reversal is required under Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986), because the state did not establish that Dela-field had been convicted of a crime and also improperly inquired into the specifics of the alleged offense. See also Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976) (<HOLDING>). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. DANIEL Options: A. holding without the benefit of argument by the parties that a petty larceny conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes B. holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value C. recognizing the inherent anxiety associated with pending criminal charges D. holding evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes E. holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower acknowledges that a breach by it of its obligations hereunder will cause irreparable harm to the Holder, by vitiating the intent and purpose of the transaction contemplated hereby. Accordingly, the Borrower acknowledges that the remedy at law for a breach of its obligations under this Note will be inadequate and agrees, in the event of a breach or threatened breach by the Borrower of the provisions of this Note, that the Holder shall be entitled, in addition to all other available remedies at law or in equity, and in addition to the penalties assessable herein, to an injunction or injunctions restraining, preventing or curing any breach of this Note and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions thereof, without the necessity of showing economic loss and without any bond or other security being required.

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

user: Receiver shall: (iii) provide such information only to those of its personnel who: (y) have a need to know the same to further VIDAR’s interests; and (z) become a party to and bound by a confidentiality agreement at least as restrictive as this Agreement prior to receiving any such information. An employee, director, officer, manager, member, partner, affiliate, associate, agent, attorney, accountant, consultant, banker, business adviser, financial adviser, scientific adviser or technical adviser of Receiver may become a party to this Agreement by signing a counterpart hereof, a copy of which shall be provided to VIDAR within five days of signature.

assistant: Yes
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 issued and outstanding shares of Common Stock have been duly authorized and validly issued and are fully paid and non-assessable; none of the outstanding shares of capital stock were issued in violation of the preemptive or other similar rights of any securityholder of the Company and the authorized, issued and outstanding capital stock of the Company is as set forth in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package or the Prospectus (except for subsequent issuances, if any, pursuant to this Agreement, any Terms Agreement or any Alternative Sales Agreement, pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated 2009 Equity Incentive Plan or exercises of options issued thereunder, pursuant to reservations, agreements or employee benefit plans or pursuant to the exercise of warrants, convertible securities or options referred to in the Registration Statement, the General Disclosure Package or the Prospectus). The Common Stock has been registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the 1934 Act and is authorized for trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market or listed on another national securities exchange, as such term is used in Section 3 of the 1934 Act (the Nasdaq Stock Market or such other national securities exchange on which the Common Stock is then listed being referred to herein as the “ Principal Market ”), and the Company has taken no action designed to terminate, or likely to have the effect of terminating, the registration of the Common Stock from the Principal Market, nor has the Company received any notification that the Commission or the Principal Market is contemplating terminating such registration or listing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other term or provision of this Agreement or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction. Except as provided in Section 8.05(e) upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, 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 a mutually acceptable manner in order that the Transactions be consummated as originally contemplated to the greatest 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: of the duty of fair representation, Plaintiffs have lost substantial income, fringe benefits, seniority and other valuable job rights and will continue to suffer such losses.”)). Whether Plaintiffs would not have been promoted even if Williams and Freeman had not been incorrectly certified as B Operators (the “but-for” world) is an issue of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Leamer, 288 F.3d at 535. Lastly, Plaintiffs Montoya and Figueroa did allege injury in that they should be ahead of Freeman and Williams on the seniority list. (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 46). Deprivation of seniority rights by a Union’s failure to file a grievance is sufficient injury to sustain a section 301 suit. See Ramirez-Lebron v. International Shipping Agency, Inc., 593 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). e. Punitive Damages Are Unavailable Under Options: A. holding that plaintiffs may bring a section 1983 claim for damages to vindicate their rights under idea B. holding that both plaintiffs discrimination and retaliation claims were beyond the preemptive scope of section 301 because they involved purely factual questions and asserted rights independent of the cba C. holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by 301 D. holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by section 301 because employers duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the cba E. holding that plaintiffs had standing to bring section 301 lawsuit to enforce seniority rights under cba

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiffs had standing to bring section 301 lawsuit to enforce seniority rights under cba
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 idea — the lock can be used again. This loss or alteration of the combination may be a useful metaphor for damage to software and data in a computer. With damage to software, whether it be by reconfiguration or loss of instructions, the computer may become inoperable. But the hardware is not damaged. The switches continue to function to receive instructions and the data and information developed on the computer can still be preserved on the hard drive. While the loss of the idea represented by the configuration of the computer switches or the combination for the lock might amount to damage, such damage is damage to intangible property. It is not damage to the physical components of the computer or the lock, i.e., to those puters & More, 147 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1116 (W.D.Okla.2001) (<HOLDING>). The claims in the underlying actions assert Options: A. holding in an insurance context that ajlone computer data cannot be touched held or sensed by the human mind it has no physical substance it is not tangible property B. holding in 1894 that it is against the public policy of this state to allow any one who has no insurable interest to be the owner of a policy of insurance upon the life of a human being C. holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights D. holding that an employer cannot be held liable under the ada if it had no knowledge of the employees alleged disability E. holding that it is not

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in an insurance context that ajlone computer data cannot be touched held or sensed by the human mind it has no physical substance it is not tangible property
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: Keep its insurable properties adequately insured at all times by financially sound and reputable insurers (which may include captive insurers), and maintain such other insurance or self insurance (including product liability insurance), to such extent and against such risks, including fire and other risks insured against by extended coverage, as are customary with companies similarly situated and in the same or similar businesses.

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: not be expected to know the applicable statute of limitations. However, in this case, the record is clear: Plaintiffs Tort Claim Notice was drafted by her attorney, who is charged with knowledge of the applicable two-year statute of limitations. (Plaintiff has never argued that the statute of limitations was tolled, and the record does not support any tolling argument.) Moreover, Plaintiff never filed a lawsuit based on the allegations in the Tort Claim Notice; she admits that she never complained to anyone about the alleged incidents until filing the notice in 2007 (Pi’s Dep. at p. 66-68, 70-71); and as a legal matter, Plaintiff did not need to file a Tort Claim Notice in order to pursue her sexual harassment claims. See Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 337-38, 537 A.2d 652 (1988) (<HOLDING>). These facts, when considered together in the Options: A. holding that a report of findings by the new jersey division of civil rights did not qualify for any hearsay exception in a discrimination case brought under the lad B. holding that claims based on asserted violations of the lad and 1983 are not subject to the new jersey tort claims act C. recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey D. holding that claims under 42 usc 1983 are not personal injury tort claims E. holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that claims based on asserted violations of the lad and 1983 are not subject to the new jersey tort claims act
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: held that the alleged contracts on which JLGAI relies are unenforceable. For this reason, JLGAI’s fraudulent inducement claim fails. Id. We overrule JLGAI’s fourth point of error. In its fifth point of error, JLGAI contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on its fraud claim. The trial court ruled that there was no competent summary judgment of reliance damages. The statute of frauds bars fraud claims seeking to recover as damages the benefit of a bargain unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Haase, 62 S.W.3d at 799. The statute of frauds, however, does not a bar a claim for fraud to the extent a party seeks reliance or out-of-pocket damages because such damages are not part of the benefit of the alleged bargain between the parties. Haase, 62 S.W.3d at 799-800 (<HOLDING>). Conclusory statements in an affidavit Options: A. holding that despite the fact that the statute of frauds prevents enforcement of the agreement a plaintiff can recover outofpocket damages incurred in reliance on the alleged false representation B. holding that the statute of frauds operates even when there has been reliance on a promise C. recognizing circumstances that justify enforcement of a promise unenforceable under the statute of frauds D. holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds E. holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that despite the fact that the statute of frauds prevents enforcement of the agreement a plaintiff can recover outofpocket damages incurred in reliance on the alleged false representation
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: Katz-Crank’s claim fails on the first of these requirements. She hasn’t alleged that the former Secretary of State or any of the investigators — state or county— either instituted the prosecution against her or caused it to be instituted. She has not alleged, for example, that these defendants plied the prosecutors with evidence they knew to be false or otherwise duped the prosecutors to indict her without probable cause. See Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 423 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that under Indiana law a malicious-prosecution claim can be made against a defendant who did not himself initiate the prosecution when the prosecution is initiated solely based on information provided by the defendant); Bah v. Mac’s Convenience Stores, 37 N.E.3d 539, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Katz-Crank failed to state a Options: A. holding that a 1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution is similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor B. holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile C. holding the same for malicious prosecution D. holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated E. holding that a claim for malicious prosecution is not available when a prosecutor makes an independent determination of whether to pursue criminal charges

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim for malicious prosecution is not available when a prosecutor makes an independent determination of whether to pursue criminal charges
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: S.Ct. 2191, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003). An amendment will not be invalidated for overbreadth simply because the plaintiff alleges that there are some impermissible applications. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 800, 104 S.Ct. 2118. We require substantial overbreadth because of the purpose of the overbreadth doctrine-"the interest in preventing an invalid statute from inhibiting the speech of third parties who are not before the Court." Id. The Supreme Court has not been consistent in addressing overbreadth under Buckley's "closely tailored" standard. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly analyzed, and in some cases invalidated, statutes based on their overbroad limits on campaign contributions. See McConnell, 540 U.S. at 281-82, 124 S$.Ct. 619 (Rehnquist, C.J., plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); Buckley, 424 U.S. at 25, 96 S.Ct. 612 Options: A. holding that such a disclaimer is not sufficient to avoid a conflict with the first amendment B. recognizing in criminal case exception to standing rules where statute involving first amendment freedoms is challenged on vagueness grounds C. holding a contribution restriction for minors was invalid because the statute was not closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of first amendment freedoms D. holding that where first amendment freedoms are not infringed by the statute a vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of the case E. recognizing a right to contribution

assistant: The best answer is C. holding a contribution restriction for minors was invalid because the statute was not closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgment of first amendment freedoms
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: does not testify). The United States Courts of Appeals are split. The First, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have ruled that the federal constitution prohibits the prosecution from making substantive use of a defendant’s pre-arrest, pr e-Miranda silence. See Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 283 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Burson, 952 F.2d 1196, 1201 (10th Cir. 1991); Coppola v. Powell, 878 F.2d 1562, 1568 (1st Cir. 1989); United States ex rel. Savory v. Lane, 832 F.2d 1011, 1018 (7th Cir. 1987). The Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, however, have ruled to the contrary. See United States v. Oplinger, 150 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Zanabria, 74 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991). ¶ 14. Ou ) (<HOLDING>); State v. Boston, 663 S.E.2d 886, 896 (N.C. Options: A. holding racebased use of peremptory strikes against jurors unconstitutional B. holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone C. holding that the use of extraverdict enhancements in an advisory guidelines system is not unconstitutional quotation omitted D. holding that use of prearrest silence in the caseinchief is unconstitutional E. holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that use of prearrest silence in the caseinchief is unconstitutional
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: As used in this Agreement, (a) the terms defined in this Agreement will have the meanings so specified, and (b) capitalized terms not defined in this Agreement will have the meanings ascribed to those terms on Exhibit A to this Agreement.

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: totality-of-the-circumstances review was infected by its misapprehension of the standard “dictated by the U. S. Supreme Court under the Mobile-Sierra doctrine.” App. 1229a. Whereas the focus of §§ 205(a) and 206(a) is on the reasonableness of the rates charged, not the conduct of the contracting parties, FERC restricted its review to the contracting parties’ behavior around the time of formation. See id., at 1280a-1284a. FERC seems to have thought it was powerless to conduct just-and-reasonable review unless the contract was already subject to abrogation based on contract defenses such as fraud or duress. By including contracts within the scope of § 206(a), however, Congress must have concluded that contract defenses are insufficient to protect the public interest. But see ante, at 547 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, nothing in the FPA or this Court’s Options: A. recognizing presumption B. holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it C. holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified D. holding that the mobilesierra presumption applies in all circumstances absent traditional grounds for abrogation or illegal action by a contracting party E. holding that fourteenth amendment is the only recognized source of authority for abrogation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the mobilesierra presumption applies in all circumstances absent traditional grounds for abrogation or illegal action by a contracting party
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was unreasonable because the district court did not give adequate consideration to his status as a first-time offender, a father, a hard worker, and a person of good character. We disagree. Our reasonableness review is “deferential,” and the burden of proving that the sentence is unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors rests on the party challenging the sentence. United States v. Valnor, 451 F.3d 744, 750 (11th Cir.2006). Although a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range will not be considered per se reasonable, “when the district court imposes a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect that choice to be a reasonable one.” Talley, 431 F.3d at 787-88; see also United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court considered Options: A. holding that district court may not presume reasonableness of guidelines sentencing range in particular case B. holding that a court could not agree to impose a sentence within the guidelines but then give a sentence that suspended all but an amount within the guidelines because a reasonable defendant would believe that within the guidelines included suspended time C. holding that there is no acrosstheboard prescription regarding the appropriate deference to give the guidelines but that a district court may have good reason to follow the guidelines in a particular case D. holding that the district court was entitled to deference in its application of 4b12 of the sentencing guidelines in a case where the underlying facts were undisputed E. holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence constitutes error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there is no acrosstheboard prescription regarding the appropriate deference to give the guidelines but that a district court may have good reason to follow the guidelines in a particular case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the exceptions to the preservation requirement). Finally, Defendant argues that her BAC results should have been excluded because the test was not performed within three hours of arrest, as required by 7.33.2.15(A)(2) NMAC. We note that this regulation has been superseded by statute. Section 66-8-110(E) (“If the test performed pursuant to the Implied Consent Act is administered more than three hours after the person was driving a vehicle, the test result may be introduced as evidence of the alcohol concentration in the person’s blood or breath at the time of the test and the trier of fact shall determine what weight to give the test result.”). Any time lapse impacts the weight of the evidence, not admissibility. See State v. Bowden, 2010-NMCA-070, ¶¶ 8-12, 148 N.M. 850, 242 P.3d 417 (<HOLDING>). II. Validity of the Search Warrant Next, Options: A. holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter B. holding that the judges independent investigation into a factual assertion and revelation of the results of that investigation to counsel deprived defendant of his right to an impartial judge and finder of fact and thus constituted structural error C. holding that when a statute and a guideline conflict the statute controls D. recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern E. holding that where a statute and regulation conflict the statute generally prevails and also explaining that section 668110e permits test results taken more than three hours after the person was driving to be admitted into evidence and gives the fact finder the discretion to give appropriate weight to the results

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where a statute and regulation conflict the statute generally prevails and also explaining that section 668110e permits test results taken more than three hours after the person was driving to be admitted into evidence and gives the fact finder the discretion to give appropriate weight to the results
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: Md. 496, 723 A.2d 423 (1999): Notwithstanding this gratuitous language in Bouldin and its incantation in a number of Maryland cases since, this Court has never held that a valid arrest in Maryland requires of the arresting officer an intent to prosecute the arrestee for the crime believed to have been committed. Despite Bouldin’s reference, in dicta, to an intent to prosecute within the Maryland common law definition of arrest, neither that case nor . any other case decided by this Court has rested upon the determination that an intent to prosecute is a prerequisite to a valid arrest. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (extending Terry to a stop based on a reliable informant’s tip that defendant was armed and carrying illegal drugs); Derricott v. State, 327 Md. 582, 587, 611 A.2d 592 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Flores v. State, 120 Md.App. 171, 182, 706 Options: A. holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot B. holding that an officer may detain a person in order to determine identity and circumstance when that officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot C. recognizing that police officer may stop a suspect if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot D. holding that a police officer may stop a driver where the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion regarding the commission of a civil traffic violation E. holding that absent probable cause to arrest a police officer may approach an individual to conduct a brief investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal conduct is afoot

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that police officer may stop a suspect if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot
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: other than this limited license and other rights you grant in these terms , evernote acknowledges and agrees that we do not obtain any right , title or interest from you under these terms in any of your content .

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: During the Term, Executive shall serve as Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer of the Company. Executive shall report directly to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”). In such capacity, Executive shall have the duties, functions, responsibilities, and authority customarily appertaining to that position and shall have such other duties, functions, responsibilities, and authority consistent with such position as are from time to time delegated to her by the Company’s CEO.

assistant: Positions
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: As of the Cutoff Date, the 2019-2 Lease Agreement is not a Liquidated Lease, a Defaulted Lease or a Delinquent Lease and, except as permitted in this paragraph, to the best of the Seller’s and Servicer’s knowledge, no default, breach, violation or event permitting acceleration under its terms has occurred; and to the best of the Seller’s and Servicer’s knowledge, no continuing condition that with notice or the lapse of time would constitute a default, breach, violation or event permitting acceleration under its terms has arisen; and GM Financial has not waived, and shall not waive, any of the foregoing.

assistant: No Defaults
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Period, Executive shall serve as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Employer or such other designation as approved by the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer. Executive shall report directly to the Chief Financial Officer of Employer or such other executive as the Chief Executive Officer of Employer shall designate (“ Supervisory Executive ”). Executive shall have those powers, duties and perquisites consistent with a senior management position and such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Supervisory Executive, provided that such other powers and duties are consistent with Executive’s position within the management structure of Employer.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: But see United States v. Gonzalez, 578 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir.2009) (suppressing evidence recovered during a preGant search that was lawful under then-controlling precedent), petition for cert. filed, No. 10-82 (July 14, 2010). We are aware that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Davis to address precisely this question. Unless and until the Court instructs otherwise, we are bound to apply this Circuit’s binding precedent in Jackson. 28 . See Buford, 632 F.3d at 276, 2011 WL 447048, at *9 n. 9 (" '[0]ur precedent on a given point must be unequivocal before we will suspend the exclusionary rule’s operation.’ " (quoting Davis, 598 F.3d at 1266)). 29 . We express no opinion on the scope of the rule announced in Gant, the continuing viability of Finley post-Gant, or the ir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, Options: A. holding that the defendants were not denied their right to be present during the peremptory strike phase of jury selection where they were present during voir dire had a chance to confer with counsel before the jury was impaneled and were present in the courtroom when the peremptory strikes were given actual effect by the clerks reading off the list B. holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges C. holding that a defendants unprovoked physical battery of his attorney in the courtroom constituted extremely serious misconduct that amounts to the forfeiture of the right to counsel regardless of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right D. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed E. holding that the defendants right to presence was not violated where the defendant had been present in the courtroom while the venire members were questioned notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was absent later when his attorney made his strikes over the lunch hour because the defendant was present in the courtroom when the clerk gave the strikes effect by reading off the list of jurors who had not been stricken

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendants right to presence was not violated where the defendant had been present in the courtroom while the venire members were questioned notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was absent later when his attorney made his strikes over the lunch hour because the defendant was present in the courtroom when the clerk gave the strikes effect by reading off the list of jurors who had not been stricken