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: There is no claim, action, suit, proceeding or investigation (or any counter or cross-claim in an action brought by or on behalf of Elle), whether at law or in equity, or before or by any governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, or before any arbitrator of any kind, that is pending or, to Elle’s Knowledge, threatened, against Elle, which (i) could reasonably be expected to adversely affect Elle’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement or the Patent Assignment or complete any of the transactions contemplated hereby; or (ii) involves the possibility of any judgment or liability, or which may become a claim, against the Assets, Harrow or its business. Elle is not subject to any judgment, order, writ, injunction, decree or award of any court, arbitrator or governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality having jurisdiction over Elle or any of the Assets that affects, involves or relates to the Assets.

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: 325, 327 (D.C.1984) (citations omitted). A. Adequacy of the Rule 11 Inquiry Appellant maintains the trial court conducted an inadequate Rule 11 inquiry because the court did not know of appellant’s mental retardation or functional illiteracy, and did not fully address the influence of medication on appellant, and thus failed to determine adequately whether he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. See United States v. Masthers, 176 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 249-50, 539 F.2d 721, 728-29 (1976) (noting that “the standard Rule 11 colloquy may prove an inadequate measure of the validity of a plea proffered by a defendant of questionable mental competence”), overruled on other grounds by Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The importance of a Rule 11 inquiry is well Options: A. holding that the standard for determining competency to plead guilty is whether the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings B. holding competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving right to counsel is same as competency standard for standing trial and disapproving contrary holding of masthers C. recognizing that a defense attorneys opinion on the clients competency or incompetency is an important but not dispositive factor for trial court to consider in its competency determination D. holding that competency standard for stand ing trial is same as standard for determining competency to waive right to counsel E. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard

assistant: The best answer is B. holding competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving right to counsel is same as competency standard for standing trial and disapproving contrary holding of masthers
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 Borrower and Canadian Subsidiary Guarantor shall keep accurate and complete records of its Inventory and shall furnish the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent and Lenders inventory reports respecting such Inventory in form and detail satisfactory to the Administrative Agent and Lenders with each delivery of a Borrowing Base Certificate that requires the calculation of subclause (b)(x) from the definitions of Canadian Borrowing Base and U.S. Borrowing Base pursuant to Section 9.17(a) . Each Borrower and each Canadian Subsidiary Guarantor shall, at its own expense, conduct a physical inventory no less frequently than annually and periodic cycle counts consistent with such Borrower’s or such Canadian Subsidiary Guarantor’s historical practices and shall provide to the Administrative Agent and Lenders a report based on each such physical inventory and cycle count promptly after completion thereof, together with such supporting information as Administrative Agent or the Collateral Agent shall request. The Administrative Agent may participate in and observe each physical count of inventory, which participation shall be at the Borrowers’ expense at any time that an Event of Default exists.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the registration of the of the trade names and trademarks and licensing of the Intellectual Property from Guarantor to Borrower, Borrower shall deliver the Intellectual Property Security Agreement to Agent. Borrower shall keep and maintain all Intellectual Property relating to the use or operation of the Property and all Intellectual Property shall be held by and (if applicable) registered in the name of Borrower. Borrower shall not Transfer or let lapse any Intellectual Property without Agent’s prior consent.

assistant: Intellectual 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: Executive acknowledges that a violation by Executive of any of the covenants contained in Section 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 could cause irreparable damage to the Company in an amount that would be material but not readily ascertainable, and that any remedy at law (including the payment of damages) could be inadequate. Accordingly, Executive agrees that, notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Company may be entitled (without the necessity of showing economic loss or other actual damage and without the requirement to post a bond) to injunctive relief (including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and/or permanent injunctions) in any court of competent jurisdiction for any actual or threatened breach of any of the covenants set forth in Section 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11 in addition to any other legal or equitable remedies it may have. The preceding sentence shall not be construed as a waiver of the rights that the Company may have for damages under this Agreement or otherwise, and all of the Company’s rights shall be unrestricted.

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: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each Guarantor agrees to pay or reimburse each Secured Party and the Collateral Agent for all its costs and expenses incurred in collecting against such Guarantor under the guarantee contained in Section 2 or otherwise enforcing or preserving any rights under this Agreement and the other First Lien Documents to which such Guarantor is a party, including, without limitation, the fees and disbursements of counsel to each Secured Party and of counsel to the Collateral Agent.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: this standard is in “doubt post-Booker.” Lackard’s suggestion to the contrary, however, the Guidelines are still to be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 49, 128 S.Ct. 586 (“As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark.”). In addition, because the district court specifically addressed several § 3553(a) factors before imposing Lackard’s sentence and explicitly tied them to Lackard’s case, we find that Lackard has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir omitted); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we refuse Lackard’s request to Options: A. holding that to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection a criminal defendant must present clear evidence to the contrary B. holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury C. holding that absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by his representations made during a plea colloquy D. holding that plaintiff must present such evidence E. holding that a conviction violated due process because the prosecutor knowingly refused to disclose crucial exculpatory evidence to the defendant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection a criminal defendant must present clear evidence to the contrary
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 Liens granted to the Administrative Agent under the Loan Documents are for the benefit of the Secured Parties. The Borrower and each Guarantor ratifies each security interest granted pursuant to the Security Instruments and other Loan Documents, each financing statement filed, and any other action taken by the Administrative Agent before the Eighth Amendment Effective Date to effect or perfect its Lien on any Collateral.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: one. We do not anticipate an escalation of such claims. The Legislature has provided a remedy to members of the public injured by “failure on the part of a public entity to provide an emergency warning signal or device when a condition exists constituting a ‘trap’ to a person using a street or highway with due care.” N.J.S.A. 59:4-4 comment. But the Legislature has closely limited that remedy by requiring compliance with N.J.S.A 59:4-2, which, among other things, requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that the public entity’s conduct was “palpably unreasonable.” Those requirements are difficult to meet. See, e.g., DeBonis v. Orange Quarry Co., 233 N.J.Super. 156, 170-71, 558 A.2d 474 (App.Div.1989) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the Legislature has recognized Options: A. holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation B. holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road C. recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge D. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing E. holding that countys general knowledge that stones from quarry would occasionally create dangerous condition on road surface was insufficient to impute to county constructive knowledge of condition of road at time of motorcyclists accident because condition was dynamic rather than static and was not predictably recurrent

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that countys general knowledge that stones from quarry would occasionally create dangerous condition on road surface was insufficient to impute to county constructive knowledge of condition of road at time of motorcyclists accident because condition was dynamic rather than static and was not predictably recurrent
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 term or provision of this Agreement that is invalid or unenforceable in any situation in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. If the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction declares that any term or provision hereof is invalid or unenforceable, the Parties agree that the body making the determination of invalidity or unenforceability shall have the power to reduce the scope, duration or area of the term or provision, to delete specific words or phrases, or to replace any invalid or unenforceable term or provision with a term or provision that is valid and enforceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of the invalid or unenforceable term or provision, and this Agreement shall be enforceable as so modified after the expiration of the time within which the judgment may be appealed.

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: agent. Id. at 13-14, 68 S.Ct. at 369 (footnotes omitted); see also Steelman, 93 S.W.3d at 112-13 (Cochran, J., concurring) (quoting from this passage); Barocio, 117 S.W.3d at 23 & n. 1, 2003 WL 21402504, at *3 & n. 1 (same). As in Johnson, Estrada did not initially respond when Baladez identified himself and sought entry into the house. Also as in Johnson, Baladez heard people moving about inside the house. This evidence, combined with the smell of drugs, did not justify a warrantless entry in Johnson and it does not do so here. Although there was other evidence in this case that might raise an officer’s suspicions, we conclude that the evidence does not rise to the level necessary to support a warrantless search of a home. See Barocio, 117 S.W.3d at 23-24, 2003 WL 21402504, at *1, 4 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, we Options: A. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search B. holding that the warrantless entry was permissible where the officers knew the defendant was inside had been involved in a serious accident was bleeding and where they received no response after knocking on the front door for several minutes entered the residence C. holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch D. holding based on steelman and johnson that evidence of the smell of marijuana emanating from a home a car with an open door and the keys in the ignition in front of the home and pry marks on the homes front door was not sufficient to justify a warrantless entry E. holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding based on steelman and johnson that evidence of the smell of marijuana emanating from a home a car with an open door and the keys in the ignition in front of the home and pry marks on the homes front door was not sufficient to justify a warrantless entry
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 statement, information, report, representation, or warranty made by Borrower or any other Obligated Party in this Agreement, in any other Loan Document or the Intercreditor Agreement or furnished to Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated hereby contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements herein or therein not misleading. There is no fact known to Borrower which is a Material Adverse Event, or which might in the future be reasonably expected to result in a Material Adverse Event that has not been disclosed in writing to Administrative Agent and each Lender.

assistant: Disclosures
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 Warrant may not be modified or amended, except with the prior written consent of the Holder (or its successor or permitted assignee) and the Company. Any instrument given by or on behalf of the Holder (or its successor or permitted assignee) in connection with any consent to any modification or amendment of this Warrant will be conclusive and binding on any and all subsequent holders of this Warrant.

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 Board may suspend or terminate the Plan or any portion thereof at any time and may amend it from time to time in such respects as the Board may deem advisable; provided , however , that, unless otherwise required by law or specifically provided herein, the rights of a Participant with respect to Bonus Units granted prior to such amendment, suspension or termination, may not be impaired without the consent of such Participant.

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: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be identical and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, and each of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice given at any time to the Company, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before November 30, 2017; provided, however, that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties). In the event of any termination by a Purchaser under this Section 5.1, the Company shall promptly (and in any event within two (2) Business Days of such termination) refund all of such Purchaser’s subscription amount.

assistant: Terminations
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 offer of the Cash-Settled RSUs is intended to comply with the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, ASIC Regulatory Guide 49 and ASIC Class Order CO 14/1000.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice permitted or required by the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given when delivered in writing to BB&T Commercial Finance at PO Box 1245, Winston-Salem NC, 27012, Attention: ABL Operations, and to the Chief Financial Officer of Synalloy Corporation at its offices in Richmond, Virginia when sent by certified mail and return receipt requested or by recognized courier. Unless otherwise required by law, if there is more than one Borrowers, any notice given by Bank to any Borrowers shall be deemed to be notice given to all Borrowers.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties of Seller set forth in this Section shall survive Closing and delivery of the Deed (as hereinafter defined) for a period of twelve (12) months after the Closing Date; provided, however, that the representations of Seller set forth in the sixth sentence of Section 5.1.5 above shall only survive Closing and delivery of the Deed for a period of six (6) months after the Closing Date.

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: For a period of one (1) year following termination of Executive’s employment for any reason, Executive agrees to cooperate in good faith with the Company and to be reasonably available to the Company with respect to continuing or future matters arising out of Executive’s services to the Company and its Affiliates in exchange for compensation at an hourly rate of one hundred dollars ($100.00), provided, however, that the Executive shall provide such cooperation at no additional charge to the Company during any periods in which Executive is receiving compensation from the Company pursuant to Sections 4.c.ii., or 4.f. Upon termination, Executive shall promptly return to the Company all property of the Company and its Affiliates, whether tangible or intangible, which she possessed or had control over at any time during the employment relationship, including, without limitation, credit cards, building and office access cards, keys, computer equipment, cell phones, electronic devices, manuals, files, documents, records, software, customer database and other data, research, financial data and information, correspondence, statistics and payroll and other data, and any copies, compilations, extracts, excerpts, summaries and other notes thereof or relating thereto.

assistant: Cooperation
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: from time to time , you may be able to purchase , with `` real world '' money , a limited , personal , non-transferable , non-sublicensable , revocable license to use `` virtual items , '' including but not limited to super likes ( collectively , `` virtual items '' ) .

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: absolutely should know how the BOP treats its inmates especially in situations where it uses live ammunition to kill them.” See Pl.’s Resp. at 3-4, EOF No. 314. Pinson does not identify any specific redactions that are problematic or provide any arguments that would help the Court weigh the' public and private interests. Pin-son does not explain why identifying particular staff members would serve the public interest or reveal what the government is up to in a way that understanding the actions of high-ranking BOP officials alone does not. Here, because Pinson has not presented any compelling evidence of illegal activity by the BOP, the names of the third-party inmates and individuals are categorically exempt from disclosure. See Pinson, 202 F.Supp.3d at 102, 2016 WL 4074130, at *7 (<HOLDING>); SafeCard, 926 F.2d at 1206 (holding that Options: A. holding that memoranda prepared by various levels of staff lawyers within the department of justice tax division and by an assistant united states attorney were exempt from disclosure under foia exemption 5 B. holding that names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are exempt from disclosure C. holding that records regarding complaints against state police officers which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted where no longer exempt after the names of state police troopers the names of complainants and all identifying information were redacted D. holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop E. holding that names of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are categorically exempt from disclosure unless disclosing such information is necessary in order to confirm or refute compelling evidence that the agency is engaged in illegal activity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the names of thirdparty inmates within memoranda were categorically exempt from disclosure absent compelling evidence of illegal activity by the bop
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 clauses and covenants contained in this Security Instrument that are construed by Section 254 of the New York Real Property Law shall be construed as provided in those sections. The additional clauses and covenants contained in this Security Instrument shall afford rights supplemental to and not exclusive of the rights conferred by the clauses and covenants construed by Section 254 and shall not impair, modify, alter or defeat such rights, notwithstanding that such additional clauses and covenants may relate to the same subject matter or provide for different or additional rights in the same or similar contingencies as the clauses and covenants construed by Section 254. The rights of Agent and Lender arising under the clauses and covenants contained in this Security Instrument shall be separate, distinct and cumulative and none of them shall be in exclusion of the others. No act of Agent or Lender shall be construed as an election to proceed under any one provision herein to the exclusion of any other provision, anything herein or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of Section 254 and the provisions of this Security Instrument, the provisions of this Security Instrument shall prevail.

assistant: Interpretations
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: care under the circumstances” to turn over the ship and its equipment and appliances “in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedoring contractor, mindful of the dangers he should reasonably expect to encounter, arising from the hazards of the ship’s service or otherwise, will be able by the exercise of ordinary care” to carry on cargo operations “with reasonable safety to persons and property.” Howlett, 612 U.S. at 98, 114 S.Ct. 2057 (quoting Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Burnside Shipping Co., 394 U zed as a gangway, the turnover duty, at a minimum, requires a vessel to provide a safe means of access. See Gay v. Barge 266, 915 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir.1990); Romero Reyes, 494 F.2d at 869; cf. Davis v. Partenreederei M.S. Normannia, 657 F.2d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The only difference between the ramp used by Options: A. holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner B. holding that the vessel owner had a responsibility to correct the positioning of the gangway C. holding that the presence of the correct address in the sworn affidavit could correct a typographical error in the warrant D. holding that where both vessels had the same owner it was not an abuse of discretion to give 75 of the salvage award to the owner E. recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the vessel owner had a responsibility to correct the positioning of the gangway
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: in an opinion subsequent to Griffith, supra, the Supreme Court stated: We have already endorsed Justice Harlan’s retroactivity analysis for cases pending on direct appeal, see Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. [314], 107 S.Ct. 708, 713 [93 L.Ed.2d 649] (1987); United States v. Johnson, 457 U.S. 537 [102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202] (1982), and we have noted, as Justice Harlan did, [Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 682-87, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1174-77, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)]; Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 260 [89 S.Ct. 1030, 1039, 22 L.Ed.2d 248] (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting), the important distinction between direct review and collateral review. Compare Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 106 S.Ct. 2878 [92 L.Ed.2d 199] (1986) (<HOLDING>), with Griffith, supra, 479 U.S. at [323], 107 Options: A. holding that a postconviction petitioner has 60 days from the date of publication of 1997 philadelphia magazine article to raise claims based thereon under batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 B. holding that the district courts observation that a challenge for cause might have been justified as to this juror was more than sufficient under batson which emphasized that the prosecutors explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause quoting batson 476 us at 97 106 sct 1712 C. holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review D. holding that batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review E. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that batson v kentucky 476 us 79 106 sct 1712 90 led2d 69 1986 does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review
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: Upon receipt or delivery by the Company of any notice in accordance with the terms of this Note, unless the Company has in good faith determined that the matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, non-public information relating to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Company shall within one (1) Business Day after any such receipt or delivery publicly disclose such material, non-public information on a Current Report on Form 8-K or otherwise. In the event that the Company believes that a notice contains material, non-public information relating to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Company so shall indicate to such Holder contemporaneously with delivery of such notice, and in the absence of any such indication, the Holder shall be allowed to presume that all matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, non-public information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries. Nothing contained in this Section ‎25 shall limit any obligations of the Company, or any rights of the Holder, under Section 4(j) of the Securities Purchase Agreement.

assistant: Disclosures
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: `` content '' includes the text , software , scripts , graphics , photos , sounds , music , videos , audiovisual combinations , interactive features and other materials you may view on , access through or contribute to the service .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Defaulting Lender shall be entitled to receive any fee payable pursuant to Section 2.09(a) for any period during which that Lender is a Defaulting Lender (and the Borrower shall not be required to pay any such fee that otherwise would have been required to have been paid to that Defaulting Lender).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: local jail was no different for the defendant than for others convicted of similar offenses. See id. The Eighth Circuit has highlighted the exceptional nature of the circumstances required for relief under § 3145(c) in subsequent cases. See, e.g., United States v. Mahoney, 627 F.3d 705, 706 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (finding that “do[ing] remarkably well on release” is not an exceptional circumstance justifying release pending sentencing); United States v. Larue, 478 F.3d 924, 925-26 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (finding that the defendant’s compliance with the terms of his pretrial release, his lack of a criminal record, his payment of child support, and his ongoing employment were not “exceptional reasons”); United States v. Little, 485 F.3d 1210, 1210-11 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has also weighed in and Options: A. holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search B. holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue C. recognizing that at common law a parents liability to support his child terminated at the parents death the terms of the support order could not be enforced against his estate unless provisions allowing for such enforcement were included in the order D. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene E. holding that the misconduct of law enforcement officers in procuring defendants arrest his cooperation in the investigation and compliance with the terms of his pretrial release conditions and his timely appearance at all court proceedings were not exceptional reasons that were clearly out of the ordinary uncommon or rare

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the misconduct of law enforcement officers in procuring defendants arrest his cooperation in the investigation and compliance with the terms of his pretrial release conditions and his timely appearance at all court proceedings were not exceptional reasons that were clearly out of the ordinary uncommon or rare
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 29 U.S.C. Section 1022(a), and is unenforceable against [him].” Id. Chalker also asserts, and correctly so, that the district court failed to address this argument. “Where the SPD [at issue] is silent on a provision that the plan documents include, and plaintiff contends therefore the term cannot apply to him,” “a two-step approach” must be used “to analyze plaintiffs argument.” Tocker v. Philip Morris Co., 470 F.3d 481, 488 (2d Cir.2006). “First, relying on the statutory language of ERISA and its implementing regulations,” the court must “look to see whether ERISA requires the term to be stated in the SPD.” Id. “Second,” the court must “consider whether plaintiff was likely prejudiced by the SPD’s silence on the term or information at issue.” Id.; see Chiles, 95 F.3d at 1519 (<HOLDING>). ERISA’s statutory language provides, in Options: A. holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan B. holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment C. holding that where an spd incorrectly describes plan benefits the claimant must demonstrate in order to secure relief that he significantly relied upon or was possibly prejudiced by the faulty plan description D. holding that because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator E. holding that a plan provision stating that the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications are hereby incorporated by reference and constitute a part of the plan acted to incorporate into the plan a limitations provision found only in the summary plan description

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where an spd incorrectly describes plan benefits the claimant must demonstrate in order to secure relief that he significantly relied upon or was possibly prejudiced by the faulty plan description
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: Miller, 413 U.S. at 30, 93 S.Ct. 2607). We, and the jury, evaluate whether the content in question appealed to a prurient interest in sex based upon contemporary community standards. See Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500, 107 S.Ct. 1918, 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987) (citing Smith, 431 U.S. at 291, 97 S.Ct. 1756); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 874 n. 39, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) (quoting Miller, 413 U.S. at 30, 93 S.Ct. 2607). We hold that a jury could reasonably find that the image in this case so appealed. Rogers sent the image in question to a thirteen-year-old minor, whom he believed to be thirteen, in the course of di c., 539 U.S. 194, 200, 123 S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003) (opinion of Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ.) (<HOLDING>). The Court also stresses that children, Options: A. recognizing limits on an individuals right to privacy and requiring the government to move a compelling interest only if there will be disclosure of protected information B. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public C. holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling D. recognizing shielding the public from unwanted exposure to pornography as a government interest sufficiently compelling to uphold a law requiring public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or else lose federal funding E. recognizing the public interest exception

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing shielding the public from unwanted exposure to pornography as a government interest sufficiently compelling to uphold a law requiring public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or else lose federal funding
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: provided for only limited review of Part B decisions. It allowed the equivalent of § 405(g) review for “eligibility” determinations. See 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff(b)(l)(B) (1982 ed.). It required private insurance carriers (administering the Part B program) to provide a “fair hearing” for disputes about Part B “amount determinations.” § 1395u(b)(3)(C). But that was all. Michigan Academy first discussed the statute’s total silence about review of “challenges mounted against the method by which . . . amounts are to be determined.” 476 U. S., at 675. It held that this silence meant that, although review was not available under § 405(g), the silence did not itself foreclose other forms of review, say, review in a court action brought under § 1331. See id., at 674-678. Cf. Erika, supra, at 208 (<HOLDING>). The Court then asked whether § 405(h) barred Options: A. holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial B. holding insufficiently definite bonus agreement that did not establish amount or method for determining amount of payment C. holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law D. holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount E. holding that the medicare part b statutes explicit reference to carrier hearings for amount disputes does foreclose all further agency or court review of amount determinations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the medicare part b statutes explicit reference to carrier hearings for amount disputes does foreclose all further agency or court review of amount determinations
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 Borrower and the transactions contemplated by the Loan Documents comply with the requirements of all laws (including, without limitation, the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder, state securities law and “Blue Sky” laws and ERISA) applicable to it and its business.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Jotun’s defense costs have not been recovered, Jotun may be reimbursed for the reasonable costs of defense paid by Jotun and not paid by Zurich. See Coleman, 418 F.3d at 525; Smith v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Ill., 807 So.2d 1010, 1022 (La.Ct.App.2002) (“[The insurer] must underwrite reasonable costs incurred by the insured.”). G. Jotun’s Ability To Recover Attorney’s Fees Incurred in the Instant Lawsuit With respect to Jotun’s claims that it be reimbursed for attorney’s fees and costs in this action, Liberty argues that Jotun cannot recover these fees pursuant to Louisiana law. Jotun claims that Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 22:658 and 22:1220 provide an award of attorney’s fees as a result of its having to enforce Liberty’s duty to defend. “ g, PA., 691 So.2d 715, 727 (La.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Jotun has failed to allege in its Options: A. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed B. holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith C. holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage D. holding that when the insured brings an action for a declaration of coverage and prevails absent a bad faith denial of coverage by the insurer attorneys fees incurred by the insured in the prosecution of that action are not incurred at the request of the insurer E. holding that an insured could not recover attorneys fees pursuant to 22658 for litigating the coverage issue because the insurer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and the insurers coverage defense was not frivolous

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an insured could not recover attorneys fees pursuant to 22658 for litigating the coverage issue because the insurer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously and the insurers coverage defense was not frivolous
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee shall receive an annualized salary of $[•] per year, payable in installments in accordance with the Company’s then standard payroll practices, or such higher compensation as may be established by the Company from time to time (“ Base Salary ”). Should Employee become “ Partially Disabled ,” which for purposes hereof means the inability because of any physical or emotional illness lasting no more than 90 days to perform his assigned duties under this Agreement for no less than 20 hours per week (and including any period of short term total absence due to illness or injury, including recovery from surgery, but in no event lasting more than the 90-day period of Partial Disability), and if Employee, during any period of Partial Disability, receives any periodic payments representing lost compensation under any health and accident policy or under any salary continuation insurance policy, the premiums for which have been paid by the Company, the amount of Base Salary that Employee would be entitled to receive from the Company during the period of Partial Disability shall be decreased by the amounts of such payments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should Employee become Totally Disabled, as defined in Section 12(b), during a period of Partial Disability, the provisions in Sections 12 and 14 with respect to Total Disability shall control.

assistant: Base Salary