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: All payments to be made by the Borrower shall be made without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by the Borrower hereunder shall be made to the Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the Agent’s Office in Dollars and in immediately available funds not later than 2:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. The Agent will promptly distribute to each Lender its Applicable Percentage (or other applicable share as provided herein) of such payment in like funds as received by wire transfer to such Lender’s Lending Office. All payments received by the Agent after 2:00 p.m. shall, at the option of the Agent, be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee shall continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by the Borrower shall come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment shall be made on the next following Business Day (other than with respect to payment of a LIBOR Rate Loan), and such extension of time shall be reflected in computing interest or fees, as the case may be.

assistant: General
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 Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrowers or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural Person or the Borrowers or any of the Borrowers’ Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Advances owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations, and (iii) the Borrowers, the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Banks and Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 4.06(e) with respect to any payments made by such Lender to its Participant(s).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Schedule 5.8 , (i) Sellers are not, and since December 31, 2015, have not been in violation in any material respect of any Law applicable to the operation of the Business or the Acquired Assets. Schedule 5.8 sets forth a true, complete and correct list of all Permits relating to the Business or the Acquired Assets held by the Sellers as of the date of this Agreement. The Permits listed in Schedule 5.8 constitute all of the Permits necessary for Sellers to lawfully conduct and operate the Business in the manner currently conducted and operated in all material respects.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: should you elect to use paid aspects of the service , you agree to the pricing , payment and billing policies related to such fees and charges , plus vat or other taxes as applicable , as posted on the website ( s ) , application ( s ) , or by an applicable payment service provider .

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: an intention that suits for pension benefits by disappointed applicants are equitable.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112, 101 S.Ct. 922, 66 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); see also Sullivan v. LTV Aerospace and Defense Co., 82 F.3d 1251, 1258-59 (2d Cir.1996); Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1007 (4th Cir.985); Turner v. CF & I Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 43, 47 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058, 106 S.Ct. 800, 88 L.Ed.2d 776 (1986); In re Vorpahl, 695 F,2d 318, 321-22 (8th Cir.1982); Calamia v. Spivey, 632 F.2d 1235, 1237 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980). Some district courts have suggested that Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989), calls these holdings into doubt. See, e.g., Hulcher v. United Behavioral Sys., 919 F.Supp. 879, 885 (E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>); Vaughn v. Owen Steel Co., 871 F.Supp. 247, Options: A. holding that 1132a1b affords the plaintiff adequate relief for her benefits claim and a cause of action under 1132a3 is thus not appropriate B. holding plaintiff had no claim under 1132a3 because his grievance that benefits were denied is specifically addressed in 1132a1b C. holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances D. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan E. holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b
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 employment relationship between you and the Company will be at-will. You and the Company will have the right to terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason whatsoever, with or without cause, and without any liability or obligation except as may be expressly provided herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Note Documents represent the entire agreement of the Company, the Note Collateral Agent and the other Secured Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Company, the Note Collateral Agent or any other Secured Party relative to subject matter hereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein or in the other Note Documents.

assistant: Integration
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 provisions contained in this Article III and in Section 4.4 and Section 4.7 will survive termination of this Agreement regardless of whether such termination is initiated by the Corporation or Executive. In the event of the termination of his employment with the Corporation and subsequent employment with, or work for, another entity or person, Executive agrees to notify the Corporation of his new employment or work, including the name and address of the new employer or entity or person he intends to work for, before commencing work for the new employer or other entity or person. In addition, Executive authorizes the Corporation to provide notice of his obligations under this Agreement, including a copy of this Agreement, to his new employer or other entity or person for whom he intends to work or provide services.

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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, Borrower, but subject to the prior written consent of Administrative Agent, sell participations to a Participant in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations, and (iii) Borrower, Administrative Agent, and Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 12.1(b) without regard to the existence of any participation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will, and will cause each Subsidiary to, maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, (a) insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations and (b) flood insurance if and to the extent required under Section 8.14(e). The loss payable clauses or provisions in said insurance policy or policies insuring any of the collateral for the Loans shall be endorsed in favor of and made payable to the Administrative Agent and the Collateral Agent as its interests may appear and such policies shall name the Administrative Agent and the Collateral Agent and the Lenders as “additional insureds” and “lender loss payees”, as applicable, and provide that the insurer will endeavor to give at least 10 days prior notice of any cancellation to the Administrative Agent and the Collateral Agent.

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: (citation omitted). In sum, the court holds, as a matter of law, that McSperitt’s contract claims against Hartford seek to enforce matters Congress intended to be regulated exclusively by ERISA. Accordingly, Hartford’s motion for summary judgment on this basis must be granted. 2. Violations of the Texas Deceptive Practices and Trade Act McSperitt’s claims against Hartford for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and for alleged violations of the Texas DTPA are likewise preempt ed. The Fifth Circuit has concluded that ERISA preempts claims brought under the Texas DTPA for failure to pay or misrepresenting benefits under an ERISA plan because such claims “relate to” the plan. Hogan, 969 F.2d at 144; Boren v. N.L. Industries, Inc., 889 F.2d 1463, 1465-66 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029, 110 S.Ct. 3283, Options: A. holding that erisa preempts state law claims of fraud and misrepresentation that are based upon the failure of a covered plan to pay benefits B. holding erisa preempts state contract and tort actions based on improper processing of claims for benefits C. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans D. holding that erisa preempts the texas dtpa because plaintiff relied on state law to advance his complaint that his benefits under the plan were terminated E. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that erisa preempts the texas dtpa because plaintiff relied on state law to advance his complaint that his benefits under the plan were terminated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and demands to or upon the Administrative Agent or any Grantor hereunder shall be effected in the manner provided for in Section 10.2 of the Credit Agreement; provided that any such notice, request or demand to or upon any Guarantor shall be addressed to such Guarantor at its notice address set forth on Schedule 1 .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: supply coverage were not existed. Mgmt. Specialists, Inc. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 32, 37 (Colo.App.2004). 3. Common Law Duty to Mitigate In addition to the contractual language, RK argues that it had a common law duty to mitigate because “[i]t is well-settled law in Colorado that an injured party may not recover damages for injuries which could reasonably have been avoided.” (RK Mot. at 10 (citing Fair v. Red Lion Inn, 943 P.2d 431, 437 (Colo.1997)).) RK asserts that the corollary to this rule is that a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for expenditures made in attempting to mitigate damages. (Id. (citing Tull v. Gundersons, Inc., 709 P.2d 940, 946 (Colo.1985)).) In Colorado, the common law duty to mitigate damages arises from a breach. See Fair, 943 P.2d at 437 (<HOLDING>); Tull, 709 P.2d at 946 (holding that plaintiff Options: A. holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action B. holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement C. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract D. holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages E. holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are a whatsapp user located in the united states or canada , the `` special arbitration provision for united states or canada users '' section below applies to you .

assistant: Arbitration
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: there was no illegal warrantless search when law enforcement agents used LimeWire to access child pornography files on the defendant’s computer because the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in those files); cf. United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196, 1205 (10th Cir.2008) (concluding that a defendant who utilized peer-to-peer software so as to allow other users to access at least certain folders in his computer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information given to his internet provider). As the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted: “One who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking.” United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 843 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 18] This argument might have been Options: A. holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle B. holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable C. holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer D. holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files E. holding stults had no reasonable expectation of privacy in files that the fbi retrieved from his personal computer where stults admittedly installed and used limewire to make his files accessible to others for file sharing one who gives his house keys to all of his friends who request them should not be surprised should some of them open the door without knocking

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files
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 may receive Incentive Payments so long as Employee chooses not to engage (whether as an owner, employee, agent, consultant, or in any other capacity) in any business or venture that competes with the business of the Company or any of its affiliates. If Employee chooses to engage in such activities, then the Company shall have no obligation to make further Incentive Payments commencing upon the date which Employee chooses to do so.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a hearing on a motion for attorney’s fees as sanctions is not the type of proceeding against the state contemplated by the statute; (2) the Legislature did not intend a parent in a dependency proceeding to be a “party” under the statute because the parent did not initiate the suit— DCF initiated by filing a petition; and (3) providing notice to DFS at the outset of the action is not possible where sanctiona-ble conduct has yet to occur. Because we hold that the plain language of the statute supports N.S.’s position, we do not address the entirety of her arguments. Courts in our state have held that section 284.30 requires notice to DFS as a condition precedent when the claim for fees is made pursuant to other statutes. Hale v. Dep’t of Rev., 973 So.2d 518, 521-22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of HRS v. Cordes, 644 So.2d 609, 610 Options: A. holding that section 12309 is a condition precedent to the accrual of rights against a municipality B. recognizing that the notice required by section 28430 is a condition precedent to the recovery of attorneys fees pursuant to section 12057lb in hospitals suit against the state C. holding that the notice requirement is a condition precedent for attorneys fees from section 12069 proceedings in action by plaintiff against state D. holding that section 28430s notice requirement is a condition precedent for fees in action by taxpayer against dor pursuant to section 213015 E. holding that rcras notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that section 28430s notice requirement is a condition precedent for fees in action by taxpayer against dor pursuant to section 213015
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 Company has agreed to employ Executive and Executive is currently employed as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The specific position and duties assigned to Executive may be changed or modified at any time by the Company, in its sole discretion. Executive will work diligently to perform his or her assigned duties in a reasonable, timely, and professional manner, and will comply with all applicable policies and rules of the Company.

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: upon the requirement that Boggs “accept responsibility for [his] conduct.” Boggs’ attempts to minimize his culpability by stating repeatedly that he did not intend to defraud the victim at the outset of the scheme, without presenting any credible evidence to support his assertions, undermined any argument that Boggs appropriately accepted responsibility. Moreover, Boggs failed to present any credible evidence to contradict the facts presented in the PSR that Boggs made “no legitimate investments” with the victim’s money. Finally, both the probation officer and the district court easily concluded that Boggs failed to accept responsibility, which is further evidence the term is not ambiguous. While Boggs’ argument finds support in United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), we conclude that the cases are Options: A. holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal B. holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement C. holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver D. holding that objecting to guidelines calculations as specifically reserved in the plea agreement is not a breach of the plea agreement even if the objection is overruled and thus government is not released from obligation under the agreement to move for acceptance of responsibility E. holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that objecting to guidelines calculations as specifically reserved in the plea agreement is not a breach of the plea agreement even if the objection is overruled and thus government is not released from obligation under the agreement to move for acceptance of responsibility
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: Worth 1992, pet. ref'd); Petty v. State, 696 S.W.2d 635, 639 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, no pet.). 15 . See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 16 . See d 376 (2006). 20 . United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 510-11 (5th Cir.2004); Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245; McQuarters v. State, 58 S.W.3d 250, 256 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref'd). 21 . Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880; Garcia v. State, 43 S.W.3d 527, 530 (Tex.Crim.App.2001); McQuarters, 58 S.W.3d at 255. 22 . Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S.Ct. 673, 676, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). 23 . Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 242; Crockett v. State, 803 S.W.2d 308, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). 24 . Garcia, 43 S.W.3d at 530; McQuarters, 58 S.W.3d at 255. 25 . See Mohmed, 977 S.W.2d at 628 (<HOLDING>); Smith, 840 S.W.2d at 692; Petty, 696 S.W.2d Options: A. holding that reasonable suspicion existed based on defendants nervousness expired drivers license and suspicious story regarding travel plans B. holding it was reasonable for a trooper to issue a written warning verify the defendant license and registration information and ask preliminary questions about travel plans because the trooper saw the defendants registration tag displayed in an unlawful manner even after he approached the vehicle C. holding that department of transportation did not have control over an uninsured motorists vehicle as intended by the personal property exception to sovereign immunity where it failed to physically obtain custody of motorists drivers license and allowed him to possess a license plate D. holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans E. holding that department of transportation did not have control of motorists drivers license because although the department of transportation may have had a duty to recall the motorists license this authority to revoke does not involve physical possession or actual control sufficient to bring the license within the ambit of the personal property exception to sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that officers may question motorists about their license registration and travel plans
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 agreements in this Section shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent and any L/C Issuer, the replacement of any Lender (by assignment or otherwise), the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Landlord hereby warrants to Tenant that, other than CBRE, no real estate broker has or will represent Landlord in this transaction. Tenant hereby warrants to Landlord that no real estate broker other than Newmark Grubb Knight Frank and Avison Young (collectively together with CBRE, the “ Brokers ”) has or will represent Tenant in this transaction. Landlord and Tenant shall indemnify each other against and hold the other harmless from all liabilities, claims, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of the breach of their respective warranty. Landlord shall compensate the Brokers pursuant to separate agreements between Landlord and the Brokers.

assistant: Brokers
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: fall within one of the limited grounds for vacation of an arbitration award. See § 16-4423(a)(3) (identifying as ground for vacatur arbitrator’s “re-fus[al] to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducting] the hearing contrary to § 16-4415,” which provides for “a right to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy, and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing,” D.C.Code § 16-4415). Ap-pellee’s brief, however, paints a different picture. He contends that appellant agreed to the arbitrators, that she testified at the hearing, and responded to questions. In short, appellant’s bare allegations are contested and, without support, are insufficient to prove a statutory basis for vacating the arbitration award. See Dolton, 935 A.2d at 299-300 (<HOLDING>). Appellant argues that because there is no Options: A. holding that the statutory grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards may not be supplemented by contract B. holding that a transcript is necessary if the asserted grounds for vacatur of arbitration award are grounded in the conduct of the proceeding C. holding that common law grounds such as manifest disregard of law and gross mistake were not valid grounds for vacatur of arbitration award as hall street forecloses any common law grounds for vacatur D. holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in 10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact E. holding that arbitrary and capricious ground for vacatur recognized along with the four grounds for vacatur specified in chapter 1 of the faa could not be used to vacate award under the convention

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a transcript is necessary if the asserted grounds for vacatur of arbitration award are grounded in the conduct of the proceeding
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: substance.”). As we have repeatedly held, solicitation of controlled substances is not an aggravated’ felony under the Con trolled Substances Act. See, e.g., Rivera-Sanchez, 247 F.3d at 909. Because Oregon’s definition of “delivery” includes solicitation, § 475.992(l)(a) is not a categorical match to a “drug trafficking crime.” Therefore, Sandoval’s conviction for delivery of heroin does not qualify as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach. Ill Our inquiry does not end here, however. We must next address whether the modified categorical approach may be used to determine whether Sandoval’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony. Only divisible statutes are subject to the modified categorical approach. See Lopez-Valencia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 863, 867-69 (9th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>). “[Djivisibility hinges on whether the jury Options: A. holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases B. holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act C. holding that the penalty is applicable D. holding descamps divisibility analysis is applicable in the immigration context E. holding that presumption is applicable in motion to dismiss context

assistant: The best answer is D. holding descamps divisibility analysis is applicable in the immigration context
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: circumstances unless it finds, on the face of the record, clear and convincing evidence that one of five enumerated exceptions applies. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(2); In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1263 (D.C.1998); accord In re Bielec, 755 A.2d 1018, 1022 n. 3 (D.C.2000) (“In Spann, we articulated that this court has ‘independent authority to impose different discipline if it finds ‘on the face of the record ... by clear and convincing evidence’ that an exception applies.’”). The fifth of these exceptions provides orney has a right to fair notice of the charges against her). It follows that reciprocal discipline based on an attorney’s resignation must be based only on those allegations of which the attorney had fair notice at the time of resignation. Cf. In re Bielec, 755 A.2d at 1024 (<HOLDING>). Schoeneman had no such notice of the charges Options: A. holding that in reciprocal discipline cases disciplinary procedures in the other state must meet minnesotas due process requirements B. holding that due process requirements may be satisfied if a defendant receives actual notice of the charges against him even if the indictment or information is deficient concluding that defective indictment did not violate defendants sixth amendment right because defendant was made fully aware of charges and potential punishment during guilty plea proceedings C. holding that vague and ambiguous charges in another jurisdiction cannot form the basis for reciprocal discipline in a manner consistent with due process requirements even if the attorney consented to that discipline D. holding a plaintiff cannot state a due process claim for defendants failure to follow statutory procedural requirements because a plaintiff cannot have a protect property interest in the procedure itself E. holding that the due process requirements of jurisdiction in michigan had been met for a dispute involving property in tennessee

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that vague and ambiguous charges in another jurisdiction cannot form the basis for reciprocal discipline in a manner consistent with due process requirements even if the attorney consented to that discipline
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 § 3583(e)(3) was reasonably foreseeable and provided the defendant with a fair warning. Thus, it was not unconstitutional to apply Johnson retroactively. Although Seals is unpublished, and thus not binding, Seals is authoritative and persuasive. Therefore, applying Johnson retroactively to Martinez’s 1993 conviction does not violate the Due Process Clause, and the district court did not plainly err in reimposing supervised release after the first revocation. Accordingly, Martinez’s sentence is affirmed. AFFIRMED; MOTION DISMISSED AS MOOT. 1 . See, e.g., United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984). 2 . Ketchum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 798 F.2d 159, 162 (5th Cir.1986). 3 . See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 126 S.Ct. 403, 406-07, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455-56, 124 Options: A. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence B. holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed C. holding that rules setting forth time limits for a defendants motion for a new trial grounded on a reason other than newly discovered evidence are not jurisdictional but instead are nonjurisdictional claimprocessing rules D. holding that newly discovered evidence must be that which existed at the time of trial but for an excusable reason was not discoverable until later E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rules setting forth time limits for a defendants motion for a new trial grounded on a reason other than newly discovered evidence are not jurisdictional but instead are nonjurisdictional claimprocessing rules
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 shall terminate with respect to a holder of Registrable Securities on the date on which such holder ceases to hold Registrable Securities; provided that, such holder’s rights and obligations pursuant to Article III shall survive with respect to any Registration Statement in which any Registrable Securities of such holders were included and, for the avoidance of doubt, any underwriter lock-up that any holder of Registrable Securities has executed prior to such holder’s termination in accordance with this clause shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms.

assistant: Terms
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: Vargas’s family in pursuit of funds and not due to Vargas’s residence in the United States or his and his cousin’s government service. According to the police report filed by his sister, the callers did not mention Vargas or his cousin, he testified that neither he nor his family were politically active, and he had not been affiliated with the Mexican government for over 15 years. Moreover, the 2010 U.S. State Department travel warning and 2011 Embassy Notices note that kidnapping and extortion of wealthy Mexicans and foreigners is widespread across Mexico. As perceived wealth is not a protected ground, and general civil strife does not establish persecution, the agency did not err in denying asylum and withholding of removal. See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 Options: A. holding that an alien cannot claim asylum based on persecution that is personally motivated B. holding that harm purely motivated by wealth is not persecution C. holding that extortion motivated in part by political opinion could qualify as persecution D. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution E. holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that harm purely motivated by wealth is not persecution
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: virtual credits , points , or tokens as further described in each applicable product policy ( `` virtual tender '' ) associated with your account that were purchased with u.s. dollars or other accepted fiat currency may be used or exchanged before virtual tender associated with your account that was not purchased ( e.g. , virtual tender that was earned through experiential play ) , no matter when that virtual tender was acquired .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall have the power and the right to deduct or withhold, or require the Participant to remit to the Company, an amount sufficient to satisfy any federal, state, local and foreign taxes of any kind (including, but not limited to, the Participant’s social security and Medicare taxes (FICA) obligations) which the Company, in its sole discretion, deems necessary to be withheld or remitted to comply with the Code and/or any other applicable law, rule or regulation with respect to the Award and, if the Participant fails to do so, the Company may otherwise refuse to issue or transfer any shares of Common Stock, or pay any amount of cash, otherwise required to be issued, transferred or paid pursuant to the Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a witness need not have specialized training in a particular field and may gain his expertise solely through work experience. Wileman v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 642, 647-48, 484 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1997) (qualifying bank official as expert in comparing signatures to determine authenticity). However, “[w]here a statute designates express qualifications for an expert witness, the witness must satisfy the statutory criteria in order to testify as an expert.” Commonwealth v. Allen, 269 Va. 262, 273, 609 S.E.2d 4, 11 (2005). Also, where a statute requires an individual to be licensed before working in a particular field, a witness not licensed in that field may ,not testify as an expert in that field. See Lee Gardens v. Arlington County Bd., 250 Va. 534, 539-40, 463 S.E.2d 646, 648-49 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In keeping with this principle, “[t]he Options: A. holding prospectively that a vendees interest in a real estate contract constitutes real estate within the meaning of the judgment lien statute B. holding equivalent automatic license revocation provision of colorado real estate statute unconstitutional C. holding that a tax appeal on real property is a lien on the real estate and not a personal obligation of the landowner D. holding the real estate sale proceeds E. holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license

assistant: The best answer is E. holding witness not licensed as real estate appraiser could not testify as expert on real estate valuation where statute made it unlawful to engage in real estate appraisal without license
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, request, demand or other communication required or permitted herein will be deemed to be properly given when personally served in writing or when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to Executive at the address appearing at the end of this Agreement and to the Company with attention to the Chair of the Board of Directors of Orion (or the Lead Independent Director if Executive is then serving as the Chair) and the General Counsel of Orion. Either party may change its address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in order to gain consent to enter the premises when, in fact, his real reason is to search inside for evidence of a crime, we find that this deception under the circumstances is so unfair as to be coercive and renders the consent invalid. *** This police conduct offends the fourth amendment and is fundamentally unfair when compared with the need for effective police investigation.” Daugherty, 161 Ill. App. 3d at 400. While Daugherty appears to be the only Illinois case invalidating consent on the ground that it was obtained through trickery, defendant also likens his case to those that invalidated consent on the ground that the police had misrepresented the defendants’ rights. See Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 549-50, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797, 802-03, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 1791-92 (1968) (<HOLDING>); People v. Casazza, 144 Ill. 2d 414, 418, 424 Options: A. holding consent involuntary when police told defendants grandmother they had a search warrant and she allowed them to enter and search B. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant C. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given D. holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit E. holding consent invalid when given under coercive circumstances in which police misrepresented that they had a warrant to search the home

assistant: The best answer is E. holding consent invalid when given under coercive circumstances in which police misrepresented that they had a warrant to search the home
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: established an elaborate network of prohibited ownership and compensation arrangements resulting in the submission and payments of millions of dollars in Medicare claims for patients referred by physicians who were prohibited from making these patient referrals to Columbia under the Stark laws. Columbia was expressly barred from submitting those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(a)(l), while it was prohibited from receiving payment for those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn(g)(l). In sum, Relator charges that Columbia’s Medicare claims violate the FCA because their presentation and payment were statutorily prohibited. By analogy, Relator relies on Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d 45, 52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Peterson v. Mathews, 423 U.S. 830, 96 S.Ct. 50, 46 L.Ed.2d 47 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Relator points to the legislative history of Options: A. holding that the treating physician rule applies in a ease where a plaintiff sought reimbursement for air ambulance services under medicare part b B. holding that county of delaware was not a person for purposes of fca liability C. holding that the knowing submission of medicare claims for services that were not covered and payable under the medicare act was an fca violation D. holding that the psro was an agency under the apa where in practically all cases medicare or medicaid benefits are not paid unless the psro makes its conclusive affirmative determinations of medical necessity E. holding that rule 9b applies to fca

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the knowing submission of medicare claims for services that were not covered and payable under the medicare act was an fca violation
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 by .pdf or facsimile signatures and in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all signatory parties had signed the same document. All counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one and the same instrument.

assistant: Counterparts