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: Executive shall be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements of the Company, consistent with the terms thereof and as such plans, programs and arrangements may be amended from time to time. The Executive shall be eligible to participate in all plans or programs that are available to other Company officers. In addition, the Company shall provide the Executive with participation in the Company’s standard executive automobile program pursuant to which he will receive a current amount of eight hundred dollars ($800) per month as an automobile allowance. The Executive shall also be eligible to use a Company-owned country club membership at the McConnell Golf Course in Wakefield Plantation, Raleigh, North Carolina. The Executive will not be eligible to participate in any severance plan or program of the Company, except as specified in Section 4 of this Agreement.

assistant: Benefits
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: trading costs for the Fund, “as the vast majority of the fixed income spreads ended up benefitting a third-party broker — East West — that provided nothing of value to the pension fund,” as Mayer put it, concluding from comparison with the actual performance of the portfolios Great Northern managed and with bond indices in the relevant period that the Fund would have earned about $300,000 on the commission dollars diverted to East West, not counting investigation costs. Berkowitz concluded that Great Northern obtained disadvantageous prices due to the criminal conspiracy involving Roach, Tringale, and Close. Great Northern challenges the admissibility of the Fund’s experts’ testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Evidence that is inadmissible because it is Options: A. holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant B. holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible C. recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible D. holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible E. holding that expert testimony may be admissible even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community provided that it qualifies in some other way as reliable under federal rule of evidence 702

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible
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: its enumerated provisions — does not undercut our application of Rodriguez-Lariz's and Arrozal’s logic to this case. The key word in both provisions is "under” — here, whether the BIA’s denial of Medina-Morales' motion to reopen was under any of the provisions listed in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). 6 .In a letter filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) on the day of oral argument, the government argues for the first time that relief for Medina-Morales is foreclosed by 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d), which subjects aliens to civil liability for failing timely to depart pursuant to a voluntary departure arrangement. We conclude that the government has waived this argument, see Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Bonneville Power Admin., 342 F.3d 924, 933 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>), and also deny as moot Medina-Morales’ motion Options: A. holding that under the circumstances of that case an argument made for the first time in a motion for rehearing was waived B. holding that we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief C. holding a party waives an argument made for the first time on reply D. holding that we do not consider sierra clubs argument made for the first time in a fed rapp p 28j letter E. holding that we do not address an argument raised for the first time in a litigants reply brief

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that we do not consider sierra clubs argument made for the first time in a fed rapp p 28j letter
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 provision of this Agreement or any other Loan Document held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability without affecting the legality, validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof or thereof; and the illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of a particular provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to any of the conflicts of law principles that would result in the application of the substantive law of another jurisdiction. This Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed with any presumption against the party causing this Agreement to be drafted.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: access , tamper with , or use non-public areas of the service , the company 's ( and its hosting company 's ) computer systems and infrastructure , or the technical delivery systems of the company 's providers ;

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: which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency,’ as well as documents which would ‘inaccurately reflect or prematurely disclose the views of the agency.’ ” Id. at 1119-20 (quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C.Cir.1980)). Relying on this same language in Coastal States, at least one court appears to have held that all draft documents are per se deliberative because they are predecisional. See Hamilton Sec. Group Inc. v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development, 106 F.Supp.2d 23, 31-32 (D.D.C.2000) (construing Coastal States as a decision that litigants should not “parse” and holding that draft audit reports were privileged). But see Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 431 F.Supp.2d 28, 37-38 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>). With respect to purely factual information Options: A. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications B. holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege C. holding that emails among prosecutors relating to decision not to prosecute were covered by the deliberative process privilege D. holding that an advisory committees draft ecological assessments were not privileged because they were not deliberative within the meaning of the privilege E. holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an advisory committees draft ecological assessments were not privileged because they were not deliberative within the meaning of the privilege
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: governmental job, thus rendering HSS a state actor and Salon’s conduct in assessing Fridman’s employability state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court finds that, on the record before it, Fridman’s argument is too tenuous to prevail. Traditionally, a defendant must have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law for its conduct to constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). Accordingly, a private entity’s conduct may become so entwined with governmental policies, or so impregnated with a governmental character as to become subject to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Kia P. v. McIntyre, 235 F.3d 749, 755-57 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The existence of a contractual relationship, Options: A. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983 B. holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states C. holding that a private plaintiff may not being an action under the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 because that statute does not create personal rights to enforce under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that to the extent that private hospital acted in furtherance of a child welfare statute and not medical considerations it may be held liable under 42 usc 1983 E. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to the extent that private hospital acted in furtherance of a child welfare statute and not medical considerations it may be held liable under 42 usc 1983
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: to Federal control and responsibility.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18. “Effects” are defined to “include: • (a) [d]ireet effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place,” and “(b) [i]ndirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Id. § 1508.8. It is undisputed that HUD’s funding of the project is a major federal action. Thus, we must determine whether HUD acted reasonably and in accordance with law in deciding, based on its EA and FONSI, that its action had no direct or indirect effects that significantly affected the quality of the human environment. See Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. at 763-64, 124 S.Ct. 2204. Plaintiff iate Credit Bank, 727 F.Supp. 1055, 1058 (S.D.Miss.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis Mountains, 116 Fed.Appx. 3, Options: A. holding that the trademark manual of examining procedure tmep does not have the force and effect of law B. holding to the same effect C. holding that directive not promulgated according to apa procedure lacks force and effect of law D. holding force to be an element of pre1994 amendment 111 which may be satisfied by proof of force or threat of force E. recognizing that when an ordinance is not published according to law it is invalid and of no effect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that directive not promulgated according to apa procedure lacks force and effect of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: omitted). The question presented by Ruiz’s second argument is whether the district court’s failure to make such findings was plain error under either Rule 32 or our precedent. “Deviation from a legal rule is ‘error’ unless the rule has been waived.” Olano, — U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 1777. Rule 32(c)(3)(D) only requires findings as to controverted matters. After Ruiz’s rearraignment the district court entered an Order for PSI, Disclosure Date, and Setting Sentence. The or der required that the PSR be made available to defense counsel when it was completed and required defense counsel and counsel for the government to file by March 9, 1992, either a statement of no objection or “[o]bjec-tions in writing to the facts of the offense and application of the sentencing guide Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Our research has turned up only one reported Options: A. holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court B. holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error C. holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report D. holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so E. holding defendant waived alleged factual inaccuracies in presentence report by failing to raise them in district court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Holder experiences a Separation by reason of Disability prior to the last day of the Performance Period, Holder or Holder’s Beneficiary, as applicable, are entitled to receive Performance Shares in an amount equal to the number of Maximum Performance Shares (without any right to receive any other Performance Shares pursuant to this Award) as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than the 15th day of the third month after the end of the Calendar Year in which the Holder experiences a Separation by reason of Disability. If Holder experiences a Separation by reason of Disability prior to the Vesting Date but on or after the last day of the Performance Period, Holder or Holder’s Beneficiary, as applicable, will be entitled to receive the number of Earned Performance Shares based on the calculation in Section 6 herein (without any right to receive any other Performance Shares pursuant to this Award) as soon as reasonably possible, but in no event later than 60 days following the Vesting Date.

assistant: Disability
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 proceeds of the Term B Loans and the Revolving Credit Loans shall be used in a manner consistent with the uses set forth in the Preliminary Statements to this Agreement. The proceeds of the Dollar Term C-1 Loans, Euro Term C-1 Loans and Term C-2 Loans shall be used to refinance the Dollar Term B-1 Loans, Euro Term B-1 Loans and Term B-2 Loans. The proceeds of the Dollar Term D-1 Loans, Euro Term D-1 Loans and Term D-2 Loans shall be used to refinance the Dollar Term C-1 Loans, Euro Term C-1 Loans and Term C-2 Loans. The proceeds of the Incremental Term D-1 Loans, together with cash on hand at the Lead Borrower shall be used to pay for the acquisition, directly or indirectly, of the capital stock of Systagenix Wound Management Mezz B.V. and Systagenix Wound Management (US), Inc. and pay the fees and expenses incurred in connection with such acquisition, Amendment No. 3 and the transactions contemplated thereby. The proceeds of the Dollar Term E-1 Loans, Euro Term E-1 Loans and Term E-2 Loans shall be used to refinance the Dollar Term D-1 Loans, Euro Term D-1 Loans and Term D-2 Loans. The proceeds of the Dollar Term F Loans and Euro Term F Loans shall be used to refinance the Dollar Term E-1 Loans and Euro Term E-1 Loans.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 and the Stockholder shall be entitled to enforce their rights under this Agreement specifically, to recover damages by reason of any breach of any provision of this Agreement and to exercise all other rights existing in their favor. The parties hereto agree and acknowledge that a breach of this Agreement would cause irreparable harm and money damages would not be an adequate remedy for any such breach and that, in addition to other rights and remedies hereunder, the Company and the Stockholder shall be entitled to specific performance and/or injunctive or other equitable relief (without posting a bond or other security) from any court of law or equity of competent jurisdiction in order to enforce or prevent any violation of the provisions of this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 583 A.2d 1037 (1991); Brooks v. State, 104 Md.App. 203, 211, 655 A.2d 1311, cert. denied, 339 Md. 641, 664 A.2d 885 (1995). Here, the court fully instructed the jury on what constitutes a conspiracy; the court was not required to explain to the jury what does not constitute a conspiracy. To be sure, discrete portions of the evidence, when divorced from the larger evidentiary context, do reflect some “single buyer-seller transactions.” Yet it strains credulity to suggest that the requested buyer-seller instruction is fairly generated under the facts of this case. The federal courts of appeal have held that defendants are not entitled to the buyer-seller instruction in circumstances like those in the present case. See, e.g., United States v. Martinez-Medina, 279 F.3d 105, 120 (1st Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Perez-Colon v. United Options: A. holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute B. holding that the sale of drugs in small quantities is inadequate without additional evidence to support a finding of conspiracy to distribute drugs to others because the seller could reasonably believe that such purchases are intended for the buyers personal use C. holding that while a simple buy and sell transaction is not sufficient for proof of a conspiracy repeated transactions for large quantities are sufficient to support an inference that the buyer and seller were engaged in a conspiracy D. holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give instruction that mere buyerseller relationship in single transaction does not alone support a conspiracy conviction where there was evidence of advanced planning among the alleged conspirators to deal in wholesale quantities of drugs obviously not intended for personal use E. holding that the evidence did not plausibly support a buyerseller instruction because overwhelming evidence showed that defendants agreed to import drugs with the intent to distribute them and engaged in repeated transactions of large quantities of narcotic drugs for resale

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the evidence did not plausibly support a buyerseller instruction because overwhelming evidence showed that defendants agreed to import drugs with the intent to distribute them and engaged in repeated transactions of large quantities of narcotic drugs for resale
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 person signing this Sixth Amendment on behalf of Tenant hereby represents and warrants that (i) he/she is authorized to execute this Sixth Amendment on behalf of Tenant, (ii) he/she possesses the requisite power and authority to bind Tenant to the terms and provisions hereof, (iii) Tenant has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Sixth Amendment by Tenant, and (iv) Tenant has been duly organized and is qualified or authorized to do business in the State in which the Premises is located. Furthermore, Tenant agrees to take any and all necessary action to keep its existence as an entity in good standing throughout the term of the Lease as extended herein, in the State in which Tenant has been organized as well as to remain qualified to do business within the State in which the Premises are located.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: arrest is amenable to “grave abuse” by police officers and prosecutors: “Minor acts of evasion and resistance are sufficiently ambiguous to give rise to honest error, sufficiently elusive to encourage false allegations, and sufficiently commonplace to afford general opportunity for discriminatory enforcement.” Id. Most—though not all—jurisdictions that have adopted statutes based upon the Model Penal Code provision, consistent with the Code’s commentary, construe these statutes to exclude punishment for mere flight. See, e.g., Womack, 847 P.2d at 611-13 (stating that leading police on a chase in Arizona was not resisting arrest under “a common sense application of the ordinary meaning of the statutory language”); see also Howard v. State, 101 P.3d 1054, 1058 (Alaska Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); State v. Crane, 46 Or.App. 547, 612 P.2d 735, Options: A. holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer B. holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest C. holding that fleeing from officers and hiding in the woods did not constitute resisting arrest D. holding that it is equally wellestablished that a suspects mere flight to escape arrest does not violate the resisting arrest statute E. holding fleeing police officers in a vehicle was a violent felony under the acca

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that fleeing from officers and hiding in the woods did not constitute resisting arrest
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: On the day prior to the Closing Date, Purchaser and Sellers shall execute and deliver the Closing Statement generated by Escrow Agent. Subject to satisfaction of the conditions to Closing set forth in Article IV , as reasonably determined by Sellers and Purchaser, on the Closing Date, Escrow Agent will (i) not later than 3:00 P.M. EST deliver the Purchase Price to Sellers in the form of a wire transfer of immediately available funds pursuant to Sellers’ escrow instruction letter addressed to the Escrow Agent (the “ Sellers’ Escrow Instruction Letter ”) and Purchaser’s escrow instruction letter addressed to the Escrow Agent (the “ Purchaser’s Escrow Instruction Letter ”), (ii) release for recordation the Deeds and such other documents as may be recorded pursuant to Sellers’ Escrow Instruction Letter, and (iii) deliver all other Closing Documents to Sellers and Purchaser, respectively, pursuant to Sellers’ Escrow Instruction Letter and Purchaser’s Escrow Instruction Letter.

assistant: Closings
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: Seller shall at all times comply with all valid and applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, ordinance, permit conditions and other governmental actions (collectively “ Laws ”) and shall be responsible for all costs associated therewith. To the extent any such Laws would hinder Seller’s ability to operate the Facility in full compliance with all requirements of this Agreement, Seller shall make commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a waiver or exemption from such Laws to the extent available.

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: Blattner had a policy or practice of failing to propei’ly compensate employees for meal breaks and work performed before and after their shift. Because the Court certifies Hoffman’s proposed meal break and overtime and minimum wage subclasses, the Court also GRANTS Hoffman’s motion to certify the proposed wage statement subclass for the period from September 24, 2010 to present. In his Reply, Hoffman raises for the first time an additional request for relief based on Blattner’s failure to issue wage statements that identified the start date of the employee’s pay period. Reply at 24. Hoffman contends this violates California Labor Code section 226(a)(6) and constitutes “an easily certifiable issue.” Id; see also McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F.Supp.2d 1222, 1229 (C.D.Cal.2011) (<HOLDING>). At the March 11 hearing, Blattner argued that Options: A. holding that failure to list a beginning date of a pay period on a pay stub was not a violation of section 226a6 when the employer provided an electronic wage statement that did include the beginning date of the pay period B. holding that same standard applies to equal pay act and title vii wage discrimination claims C. holding that limitations period in section 13 214a of the code applies over limitations period for contribution actions found in section 13 204 of the code because former provision is more specific D. holding that the states rule dates the beginning of the discovery period only from the filing of the answer E. holding that defendant violated labor code section 226a6 by failing to include the beginning date for the pay period in its wage statements

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendant violated labor code section 226a6 by failing to include the beginning date for the pay period in its wage statements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee’s annual base salary for all services rendered shall initially be One Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($167,000.00) (less applicable taxes and withholdings) payable in accordance with the Bank’s customary payroll practices as they may exist from time to time (“ Base Salary ”). The Employee’s Base Salary may be reviewed and increased by the Bank at its sole discretion, in accordance with the Bank’s policies, procedures and practices as they may exist from time to time.

assistant: Base Salary
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 and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, and, with respect to patents and patent rights, subject to the knowledge of the Company, own or possess adequate rights or licenses to use all trademarks, trade names, service marks, service mark registrations, service names, patents, patent rights, copyrights, original works of authorship, inventions, licenses, approvals, governmental authorizations, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights and all applications and registrations therefor (“ Intellectual Property Rights ”) necessary to conduct their respective businesses as now conducted and as presently proposed to be conducted. The Company’s and its Subsidiaries’ Intellectual Property Rights have not expired, terminated or been abandoned, or are expected to expire, terminate or be abandoned, within six (6) months from the date of this Agreement, other than resulting from reasonable business judgment of the Company. The Company has no knowledge of any infringement by the Company or its Subsidiaries of Intellectual Property Rights of others. There is no claim, action or proceeding being made or brought, or to the knowledge of the Company, being threatened, against the Company or its Subsidiaries regarding their Intellectual Property Rights. The Company is not aware of any facts or circumstances which might give rise to any of the foregoing infringements or claims, actions or proceedings. The Company and its Subsidiaries have taken commercially reasonable security measures to protect the secrecy, confidentiality and value of all of their Intellectual Property Rights.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is available once there has been a “final denial” in the first instance — and by doing so fail to file suit within six months of the Government’s first “final denial,” § 14.9(b) may be used to estop the Government irom relying on the statute of limitations as a defense. The Government is incorrect in its assertion that equitable considerations are not to be considered under the FTCA and fails to recognize the significance of several cases stating otherwise. See Irwin v. Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (establishing the general rule that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is available in suits against the government unless Congress provides otherwise); Glarner v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Administration, 30 F.3d 697 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Clearly a court following Glamer must assess Options: A. holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations B. recognizing that rcw 1073090 can be equitably tolled but declining to toll it in the particular case C. recognizing that 2244dlds statute of limitations can be tolled D. holding that 2401b of the ftca can be equitably tolled E. holding that 42 usc 405g may be equitably tolled based on a plaintiffs mental impairment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 2401b of the ftca can be equitably tolled
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date of execution of this Agreement, there are 47,600,000 shares of the Company’s common stock issued and outstanding. Except as disclosed to the Investor or in documents (the “Exchange Act Documents”) filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), there are no other outstanding rights (including, without limitation, preemptive rights), warrants or options to acquire, or instruments convertible into or exchangeable for, any unissued shares of capital stock or other equity interest in the Company or any contract, commitment, agreement, understanding or arrangement of any kind to which the Company is a party or of which the Company has knowledge and relating to the issuance or sale of any capital stock of the Company, any such convertible or exchangeable securities or any such rights, warrants or options.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall be entitled to paid vacation in accordance with the Company’s vacation policy as in effect from time to time, provided that, in no event shall Executive be entitled to less than four (4) weeks of paid vacation per calendar year. Executive shall also be entitled to paid holidays and personal days in accordance with the Company’s practice with respect to same as in effect from time to time.

assistant: Vacations
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: Notwithstanding the Change in Control vesting as stated in Section 2(b) above, any unvested RSUs will be forfeited immediately, automatically and without consideration upon a termination of the Participant’s Service for any reason. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the RSUs and the Shares (and any resulting proceeds) will continue to be subject to Section 13 of the Plan.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: Neither the Borrower nor any of the Subsidiaries is a party to, or is bound by, any agreement, contract, or instrument or subject to any charter or other corporate restriction which materially and adversely affects the business, properties, assets, operations, or condition, financial or otherwise, of the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries, taken as a whole. The ability of the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries to declare, make, or pay dividends in respect of any shares of its common stock is not expressly limited by the provisions of any agreement or instrument other than the Comerica Loan Agreement. Each of the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries is in full compliance with and is not in default in the performance, observance, or fulfillment of any obligations, covenants, or conditions contained in any agreement or instrument to which it is a party, other than any defaults which individually or in the aggregate are not reasonably likely to materially adversely affect the business, earnings, prospects, properties, or condition (financial or otherwise) of the Borrower and the Restricted Subsidiaries, taken as a whole.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 358 U.S. 57 79 S.Ct. 1 3 L.Ed.2d 28 Earl R. DEEN, Petitioner,v.Honorable J. E. HICKMAN, Chief Justice and Honorable W. St. John Garwood, etal., Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Texas. No. 133 Misc. Decided Oct. 27, 1958. Messrs. David C. McCord and Robert Lee Guthrie, for petitioner. Mr. Luther Hudson, for respondent Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. PER CURIAM. 1 In Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., 353 U.S. 925, 77 S.Ct. 715, 1 L.Ed.2d 721, this Court, having held 'that the proofs justified with reason the jury's conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury,' reversed the judgment of the Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 275 S.W.2d 529. On remand, that court held that the question of negligence was foreclosed by this Court's decision and affirmed a judgment in favor of the petitioner on condition that petitioner accept a remittitur. Tex.Civ.App., 306 S.W.2d 171. On review, the Texas Supreme Court, 312 S.W.2d 933, 942, remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals 'with directions * * * to adjudicate, upon its own independent evaluation of the evidence and wholly apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether or not the jury finding of negligence of the defendant * * * is so against the weight and preponderance of the evidence as to require a new trial in the interest of justice and, upon the basis of its said adjudication, to either affirm the judgment of the trial court or grant a new trial.' The determination of that issue was foreclosed by Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co., supra. The motion for leave to file a petition requesting this Court to mandamus the Texas Supreme Court to conform its decision to our mandate in that case is granted. Assuming as we do that the Supreme Court of Texas will of course conform to the disposition we now make, we do not issue the writ of mandamus. 2 Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 8
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: though that agreement was not attached to any of the pleadings of record, and was not admitted into evidence below. The circuit judge denied the motion for rehearing, reasoning that it was an appellate court’s duty to correct fundamental errors even when they have not been identified by the parties and that the appeal involved fundamental error. DOT then petitioned this court for certiorari review. The Authority, which was not a party at trial or in the circuit appeal, also filed a petition for writ of certiorari on May 22, 2008, arguing that the appellate court did not have jurisdiction over it and violated due process by issuing an injunction against it even though it had not been named as a party or given an opportunity to be heard on the issues. Stand o.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 Options: A. recognizing any issue of infringement determined by the itc does not bind this court or the parties B. recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court C. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court D. holding that trial court erred by entering an injunction sua sponte as an injunction cannot be entered unless a pleading requests one E. recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court
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: In case any provision in this Indenture or in the Notes shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby and such provision shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability.

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: what adverse inferences should be drawn and what evidentiary weight should they carry. The SEC contends that the following three inferences should be drawn: First, adverse inferences should be drawn against Smith and McGinn concerning the evidence regarding likelihood of success on the merits. Second, adverse inferences should be drawn against David Smith concerning the evidence regarding the David and Lynn Smith Irrevocable Trust, the Stock Account, the Checking Account, and the Vero Beach house; and against Timothy McGinn as to the Niskayuna house. Third, a 001) (explaining that the adverse inference which the jury could permissibly have drawn did not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving the elements of its claims); SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Blinzler v. Marriott Intern., 81 F.3d 1148, Options: A. holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment B. holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment C. holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment D. holding that adverse inference rule is permissive E. holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment
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: J. Justin Lamar Jones seeks a writ of habeas corpus, alleging one claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, he argues the attempted manslaughter jury instruction given in his case constituted fundamental error, and counsel’s failure to raise the issue on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance. . We grant the petition. See Pierce v. State, 121 So.3d 1091, 1093-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). Jones was charged with attempted first-degree Options: A. recognizing that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims not premised on procedurally barred claims can be raised for the first time on appeal by new appellate counsel and are not limited to habeas review B. holding failure of appellate counsel to argue on direct appeal that instructions for attempted manslaughter by act were fundamentally flawed constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel C. holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate D. recognizing that strickland applies to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims E. holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding failure of appellate counsel to argue on direct appeal that instructions for attempted manslaughter by act were fundamentally flawed constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you and dropbox agree to resolve any claims relating to these terms or the services through final and binding arbitration by a single arbitrator , except as set forth under exceptions to agreement to arbitrate below .

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: OF ERROR LAGOA, Judge. Based on the State’s confession of error, we find that the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s order requiring appellant to pay child support. The State concedes that the child support guidelines worksheet is not contained in the record and, accordingly, reversal is warranted. See Long v. Long, 916 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary Options: A. recognizing impact of child support guidelines B. holding prior to adoption of child support guidelines that a credit was discretionary C. holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet D. holding that an outofwedlock childs pending claim for retroactive child support was nondischargeable in bankruptcy because a debt for child support arises upon the birth of the child and that the fact that no court had yet ordered the debtor to support the child does not take the debt outside the scope of 11 usc 523a5 E. holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet
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: FCC must be filed “within 60 days after its entry.” 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (2000); see also 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). In this case, the petition for review was filed within 60 days of the Clarification but not within 60 days of the Supplemental Order. Respondent argues that it is timely only as to claims that arose from the Clarification, not as to ones essentially aimed at the Supplemental Order. But the Clarification radically changed the Supplemental Order in a way we have not yet mentioned. In the Supplemental Order the Commission said that it would issue a final decision on the EELs restriction in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”), which notice “will occur on or before June 30, 2000.” Supplemental Order, 15 FCC Red 1760 at Comm’n, 720 F.2d 958, 961 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Here the initial order appeared to present Options: A. holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial B. holding that the petitioner could demonstrate its constitutional standing for the first time on judicial review of an order of the land use board of appeals because the need to do so first arose when the petitioner sought to invoke the courts jurisdiction on judicial review C. holding that a temporary order with no fixed time period had lasted so long as to make judicial review timely D. holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review E. holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a temporary order with no fixed time period had lasted so long as to make judicial review timely