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: In the event that the Indenture Trustee receives a request for its consent to an amendment, modification or waiver under this Indenture, the Equipment Notes or any Operative Agreement relating to the Equipment Notes, the Indenture Trustee shall mail a notice of such proposed amendment, modification or waiver to each Noteholder asking whether or not to consent to such amendment, modification or waiver if such Noteholder’s consent is required pursuant to this Indenture; provided that any amendment, modification or waiver of the provisions described in Section 9.02 hereof is not permitted without the consent of each Noteholder required thereby; provided further, however , that any Event of Default may be waived in accordance with Section 4.04 hereof. The foregoing, however, shall not prevent the Issuer from amending any Lease of a Railcar, provided that such amendment is otherwise permitted by this Indenture and the Management Agreement.

assistant: Modifications
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 this evidence, we have no difficulty concluding that Baxter perceived Cline to be significantly restricted in his ability to perform the role of night maintenance supervisor. It remains to be determined whether the night maintenance supervisor’s position qualifies as a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as opposed to a single, particular job. We have previously held that to sustain its burden on this point, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer “regarded the plaintiff] as handicapped in his or her ability to work by finding the employee’s impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved.” Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 935 (4th Cir.1986); see also Halperin, 128 F.3d at 199; Gupton v. Com. of Virginia, 14 F.3d 203, 205 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). In the case sub judice, we hold that Cline’s Options: A. holding that when the claimant has established that his impairment prevents him from returning to his previous employment the burden shifts to the commissioner who must produce evidence to show the existence of alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy and which the claimant could perform considering not only his physical and mental capability but also his age education experience and training B. holding that a plaintiffs ability to work is substantially limited when his impairment foreclosed him generally from obtaining jobs doing the type of work plaintiff has chosen as his field C. holding that for a plaintiff to prove that he has a record of impairment under 42 usc 121022b there must be a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities D. holding that an employer regards an employee as handicapped in his or her ability to work by find ing the employees impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved E. holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plaintiffs ability to work is substantially limited when his impairment foreclosed him generally from obtaining jobs doing the type of work plaintiff has chosen as his field
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 do n't provide niantic with an arbitration opt-out notice within the thirty ( 30 ) day period , you will be deemed to have knowingly and intentionally waived your right to litigate any dispute except as expressly set forth in clauses ( a ) and ( b ) above .

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: Julio Pacheco-Adame appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for illegal entry of a deported alien. Pacheco-Adame contends that in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), it is illegal to impose a sentence in excess of the two-year maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based upon a prior felony not pled in the indictment nor admitted as part of the plea. PachecoAdame also contends that Apprendi renders inapplicable Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (<HOLDING>), because he did not admit to an aggravated Options: A. holding that the death of a victim may not be considered an aggravating factor in a homicide sentencing B. holding that age factor in sexual assault statute pertains only to sentencing and is not an element of the offense C. holding that 8 usc 1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense D. recognizing that 8 usc 1326b contains sentencing facts not elements of the offense E. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 8 usc 1326b2 is a sentencing factor and not a separate offense
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: all applicable fees , including the listing fee , security deposit ( if applicable ) , guest fee and any applicable taxes ( collectively , `` total fees '' ) will be presented to you prior to booking a listing .

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: Sept. 18, 2007); Pease v. Med-tronic, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1358 (S.D.Fla.1998). This case stands on substantially different procedural footing than did the cases in Barwick, Long, and Lakey, and in most other instances in which the courts have remanded for a ruling on a motion to amend. In those cases, the motion to amend proposed an amendment that would create federal jurisdiction, but if the state court denied the motion then the case would not become removable. Barwick, 2012 WL 1656736 at *2 (“Although Plaintiffs’ proposed Fourth Amended Complaint may have contained federal causes of action ... [they] remain nothing more than proposed causes of action until the state court judge allows Plaintiffs to file their newest complaint.” (emphasis removed)); Long, 2012 WL 2370218 at *2-3 (<HOLDING>); La-key, 2007 WL 2029334 at *2 (holding that a Options: A. holding that motion to amend complaint to add punitive dajnages did not start the clock because amount in controversy was not met unless the motion was granted B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint to add punitive damages where motion was filed seven weeks before end of discovery but ten months after district court entered scheduling order and where plaintiff provided no reason why those damages could not have been alleged earlier and no good cause for late filing of motion to amend C. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint D. holding that a plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to add a claim E. holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that motion to amend complaint to add punitive dajnages did not start the clock because amount in controversy was not met unless the motion was granted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that a remedial statute such as the Bankruptcy Code should be liberally construed.” Ibid. The court further noted that its interpretation of § 1146(a) better accounted for “the practical realities of Chapter 11 reorganization cases” because a debtor may need to transfer assets to induce relevant parties to endorse the proposed confirmation of a plan. Ibid. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its holding conflicted with the approach taken by the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fourth Circuits, id., at 1302, which have held that § 1146(a) “does not apply to ... transactions that occur prior to the confirmation of a plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.” In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del., 335 F.3d 243, 246 (C.A.3 2003); see also In re NVR, LP, 189 F.3d 442, 458 (C.A.4 1999) (<HOLDING>). We granted certiorari, 552 U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that 544 applies to prepetition transfers only B. holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment C. holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date D. holding that 1146a applies only to transfers under the plan occurring after the date of confirmation E. holding that the fsa applies to sentencing proceedings occurring after august 3 2010

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 1146a applies only to transfers under the plan occurring after the date of confirmation
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: construing “relatively low” to mean that further increases would “reduce the ion signal.” Thus, the court will construe “relatively low level” and “relatively low value” to mean “the level or value of kinetic energy below the level at which the ion signal is reduced by further increases of the kinetic energy.” This construction is consistent with the whereby clause in claims l(k) and 14(h) discussed next. 4. “whereby to provide improved transmission of ions through said inter-chamber orifice” Micromass argues at length that the two “whereby clauses” at the end of claims l(k) and 14, are claim limitations because they describe the “necessary result” or “critical property” of the claimed invention. See EX Indus., L.P. v. Culligan Water Techs., Inc., 90 F.Supp.2d 461, 487-88 (D.Del. 1999) (<HOLDING>). This is in contrast to the general rule that Options: A. holding that the recitation of a quantitative drop rod test rendered definite a claim limitation B. holding that limitation of liability clause was unambiguous C. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim D. holding that a whereby clause that was substantially amended to overcome prior art was sufficiently definite to constitute a claim limitation and did not simply announce the inventions result E. holding that the current party was sufficiently identified with the parties to the prior litigation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a whereby clause that was substantially amended to overcome prior art was sufficiently definite to constitute a claim limitation and did not simply announce the inventions result
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 citizen-informant's tip about a drunk driver is sufficient to give the police reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal behavior, ie., driving under the influence, even if the basis for the informant's conclusion is not fully explained. See id. However, whether a person is "smoking drugs" does not seem to fall within the realm of knowledge common to members of the public, unlike the ability to re hat the officer identifies as cocaine is sufficient to constitute probable cause (or reasonable suspicion) requires careful analysis because cocaine in its pure form, as the expert in this case test 2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1043, 108 S.Ct. 2035, 100 L.Ed.2d 620 (1988); State v. Harrison, 287 Wis.2d 133, 703 N.W.2d 383U, 2005 WL 1577441, *2 (Wise.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). See also People v. Darby, 263 A.D.2d 112, Options: A. holding that a smell associated with pcp was enough to establish probable cause B. holding that because of officers experience detection of the smell of cocaine smoke reliably supported a probable cause determination C. holding officer had probable cause after detecting an odor associated with cocaine because of officers experience from prior cocaine seizures D. holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle E. holding that the smell of burning opium was sufficient to establish probable cause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because of officers experience detection of the smell of cocaine smoke reliably supported a probable cause determination
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 the number of outstanding shares of common stock is increased or decreased or the shares of common stock are changed into or exchanged for a different number or kind of stock or other securities of the Company on account of any recapitalization, reclassification, stock split, reverse split, combination of Stock, exchange of stock, stock dividend or other distribution payable in capital stock, or other increase or decrease in such stock effected without receipt of consideration by the Company occurring after the Grant Date, the Committee shall make appropriate adjustments in the number of shares of Restricted Stock Units covered by this grant.

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: All of the disclosures furnished by or on behalf of HPPI to Mayne Pharma regarding HPPI and HPPI’s Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules, and all of the representations and warranties of HPPI contained herein, are true and correct and do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by HPPI during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. HPPI acknowledges and agrees that Mayne Pharma does not make or has not made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Ex parte Young doctrine in Verizon, 535 U.S. at 645-48, 122 S.Ct. 1753, its discussion of tribal sovereign immunity in Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670, or its decisions allowing affirmative injunctions against state officers under Ex parte Young, e.g., Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977). Ill-positioned as we are to issue retractions for the highest court in the land, we will assume arguendo that footnote 11 is not a dead letter circa 2008. But our discussion should not be mistaken for an endorsement of its continuing vitality, and any court that would rely on footnote 11 to bar an Ex parte Young suit would have to grapple with the issue of its possible obsolescence. Taking a cue from P Ct. 164, 31 L.Ed. 216 (1887) (<HOLDING>). These cases, from whence came Larson’s Options: A. holding that sovereign immunity prevents suit to enjoin state officer from bringing tax collection suits against persons who had paid taxes with bond coupons where such collection was alleged to breach bondholders contract and where specific performance of acceptance of coupons was requested B. holding that sovereign immunity prevents suit to compel state comptroller general to levy a tax to fund redemption of revenue bond scrip C. holding that sovereign immunity prevents mandamus action to compel state officers to levy a tax to pay bondholders D. holding that sovereign immunity prevents bondholders foreclosure suit E. holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that sovereign immunity prevents suit to enjoin state officer from bringing tax collection suits against persons who had paid taxes with bond coupons where such collection was alleged to breach bondholders contract and where specific performance of acceptance of coupons was requested
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Company and its Subsidiaries are (and in the last three (3) years have been) in compliance in all material respects with all Laws applicable to the Company, and each such Subsidiary, respectively, any of their properties or other assets or any of their businesses or operations. Since their commencement of business to the date hereof, each of the Company and its Subsidiaries has not (i) been charged with the violation of any Laws or (ii) received written notice to the effect that a Governmental Authority claimed or alleged that the Company was not in compliance with all Laws applicable to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, any of their respective properties or other assets or any of their respective business or operations. The foregoing provisions of this Section 4.10 do not apply to Health Care Regulatory Compliance matters to the extent covered by Section 4.19 .

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: Nothing in this agreement or any disclosure hereunder creates any obligation to disclose Confidential Information, use the Confidential Information in any product, warrant the accuracy or completeness of the Confidential Information, or the fitness of the Confidential Information for a particular purpose, or grant any license or other right to Confidential Information under copyright or other intellectual property right to the Discloser other than the right to use the Confidential Information for the Purpose.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Amendment or the other Loan Documents is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, (a) the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Amendment and the other Loan Documents shall not be affected or impaired thereby and (b) the parties shall endeavor in good faith negotiations to replace the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions. The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. Without limiting the foregoing provisions of this Section 5.2 , if and to the extent that the enforceability of any provisions in this Amendment relating to Defaulting Lenders shall be limited by Debtor Relief Laws, as determined in good faith by the Administrative Agent, the L/C Issuer or the Swing Line Lender, as applicable, then such provisions shall be deemed to be in effect only to the extent not so limited.

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: The proceeds of the Advances will be used by the Borrower for the purposes described in Section 6.6 . No Credit Party nor any Subsidiary thereof is engaged principally or as one of its activities in the business of extending credit for the purpose of “purchasing” or “carrying” any “margin stock” (as each such term is defined or used, directly or indirectly, in Regulation U). No part of the proceeds of any of the Advances or Letters of Credit will be used for purchasing or carrying margin stock or for any purpose which violates, or which would be inconsistent with, the provisions of Regulation T, U or X. Following the application of the proceeds of each Advance or Letter of Credit, not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the value of the assets (either of the Borrower only or of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis) subject to the provisions of Section 6.2 or Section 6.8 or subject to any restriction contained in any agreement or instrument between the Borrower and any Lender or any Affiliate of any Lender relating to Indebtedness will be “margin stock”.

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 agreements in this Section and the indemnity provisions of Section 10.02(e) shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Commitments of all the Lenders and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other DIP Term Credit 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Cir.2001). While all children are certainly harmed by child pornography, the actual child depicted or receiving such pornography is “the primary, identifiable victim.” Id. The Court thus is very concerned about allowing the Guidelines to expand the definition of the primary victims of child pornography — minors—beyond the definition provided for in the statute. In this case, the victim for which the enhancement was created is an adult. Therefore, given Booker, the Court is not inclined to impose a Guidelines enhancement that expands a definition beyond its statutory confines. The Guidelines commentary, in this Court’s view, is plainly inconsistent with the statute if the Government’s view is adopted. See Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993)(<HOLDING>). Moreover, although Justice Breyer’s opinion Options: A. holding that where the commentary to a guideline is at odds with another provision of the guidelines the guideline prevails B. holding that sentencing guidelines commentary must be given controlling weight unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is plainly inconsistent with the guidelines itself C. recognizing the guidelines commentary is authoritative D. holding that guidelines commentary is generally authoritative E. holding that commentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of that guideline

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that commentary in the guidelines manual that interprets or explains a guideline is authoritative unless it violates the constitution or a federal statute or is inconsistent with or a plainly erroneous reading of that guideline
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 Director hereby agrees and acknowledges that (i) each of the Underwriters and the Company would be irreparably injured in the event of a breach by the Director of his obligations under paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 14, (ii) monetary damages may not be an adequate remedy for such breach and (iii) the non-breaching party shall be entitled to injunctive relief, in addition to any other remedy that such party may have in law or in equity, in the event of such breach.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon receipt or delivery by the Company of any notice in accordance with the terms of this Note, unless the Company has in good faith determined that the matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries, the Company shall within one (1) Business Day after any such receipt or delivery publicly disclose such material, nonpublic information on a Current Report on Form 8-K or otherwise. In the event that the Company believes that a notice contains material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries, the Company so shall indicate to such Holder contemporaneously with delivery of such notice, and in the absence of any such indication, the Holder shall be allowed to presume that all matters relating to such notice do not constitute material, nonpublic information relating to the Company or its Subsidiaries.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: CURIAM. The defendant appeals from the denial of his Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. We affirm on the authority of State v. Del Castillo, 890 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)(<HOLDING>); McCall v. State, 862 So.2d 807, 808 (Fla. 2d Options: A. holding that where original sentencing judge imposed a guidelines sentence defendant could not be sentenced as a habitual offender upon violation of probation B. holding that a defendant sentenced as an habitual offender who later successfully challenges one of his predicate offenses may have his habitual offender status and sentencing enhancement vacated through postconviction relief or a motion to correct erroneous sentence C. holding that under the 1991 version of the habitual offender statute defendant could not receive habitual offender sentence for life felony D. holding that defendants habitual traffic violator conviction could also serve as a predicate felony conviction under the general habitual offender statute E. holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that predicate crimes for which defendant received probation and adjudication could be considered for purposes of habitual offender enhancement
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 circumstances — that he was a minor and could not waive his rights, that the statement was taken during the early morning hours, that he had been found asleep in a car, and that a portion of the statement was not written by him.' — • these circumstances, either alone or combined, do not establish that the statement was involuntary. In fact, the testimony at trial from the two officers who took the statement shows that the statement was clearly voluntary. The testimony at trial showed that Duncan was read his rights, that he did not appear to be intoxicated or incapacitated, that he was not threatened or coerced into giving a statement, and that he waived his right to have his parents present during the questioning. (R. 452-505); see Ex parte Smith, 611 So.2d 1023, 1025 (Ala.1992) (<HOLDING>). “... Duncan has failed to provide any facts Options: A. holding testimony that defendant had no response to question during police interview was not impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent where defendant had voluntarily waived his miranda rights B. holding that the right to have counsel present means the right to have counsel physically present during the interrogation not merely the right to consult an attorney by telephone C. holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police D. holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end E. recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police
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 Award Recipient authorizes the Company to withhold from his or her compensation, including RSUs subject to the Award and the Settlement Shares issuable hereunder, to satisfy any income and employment tax withholding obligations in connection with the Award. No later than the date as of which an amount first becomes includible in the gross income of the Award Recipient for Federal income tax purposes with respect to any Settlement Shares subject to the Award, the Award Recipient shall pay to the Company, or make arrangements satisfactory to the Company regarding the payment of, all Federal, state and local income and employment taxes that are required by applicable laws and regulations to be withheld with respect to such amount. The Award Recipient agrees that the Company may delay delivery of the Settlement Shares until proper payment of such taxes has been made by the Award Recipient. If required pursuant to the Company’s policy as applied to the Award Recipient or elected by the Award Recipient, to the extent permitted by law, tax withholding obligations in respect of the Award shall be satisfied by authorizing the Company to withhold (provided the amount withheld does not exceed the maximum statutory tax rate in the Award Recipient’s applicable tax jurisdiction or such lesser amount as is necessary to avoid adverse accounting treatment for the Company) from the Settlement Shares otherwise issuable to the individual pursuant to the settlement of the Award, a number of shares having a Fair Market Value, as of the Tax Withholding Date, which will satisfy the amount of the withholding tax obligation. Further, unless determined otherwise by the Committee, the Award Recipient may satisfy such obligations under this paragraph 17 by any method authorized under Section 9 of the Plan.

assistant: 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in particular , while most of the content posted by the other athletes in our community is helpful , it is coming from strangers on the internet and should never trump good judgment or actual medical advice .

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: Se lack of record evidence demonstrating a cognizable link between his injuries and either his shipmate’s drunkenness or the M/V Bennett’s alcohol policy. A defendant “may not be held liable” for its employee’s misconduct “unless the particular act performed negligently was also in the scope of employment of the negligent employee.” Trost v. Am. Hawaiian S.S. Co., 324 F.2d 225, 227 (2d Cir.1963); see also Gallose v. Long Island R.R., 878 F.2d 80, 83 (2d Cir.1989) (applying Trost’s rule in context of FELA claim); Higgins v. Metro-North R.R., 318 F.3d 422, 426 (2d Cir.2003) (following Gallóse ). Like the district court, we easily conclude that drinking alcohol was not within the scope of the shipmate’s employment. Cf. Robinson v. Ne. S.S. Corp., 228 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1956) (<HOLDING>). Nor could Reynolds demonstrate that the M/V Options: A. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action B. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury C. holding that in the absence of superiors directive or authorization negligence of marineremployee who assisted drunken shipmate was not attributable to shipowner D. holding that there was no evidence in the record to support appellants contention that the doctor committed a separate act of negligence by continuing to prescribe coumadin and that the doctors alleged failure to correct any previous negligence does not constitute additional acts of negligence E. holding that the absence of privity does not constitute a policy reason for not imposing liability where negligence is a substantial factor in causing the harm alleged

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in the absence of superiors directive or authorization negligence of marineremployee who assisted drunken shipmate was not attributable to shipowner
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 policies of insurance existing on the date hereof relating to the Business, the Business Assets and the Business Employees (except for any such policies maintained to provide benefits to employees under an Employee Benefit Plan) are in full force and effect, and no Seller Company is in default in any material respect with respect to its obligations under any such insurance policies. All premiums and other payments due from any Seller Company or other direct or indirect Subsidiary of the Seller Companies engaged in the Business prior to the date of this Agreement under or on account of any such insurance policies have been paid as of the date hereof or are current under any applicable installment plan of payment. Except as set forth on Section 3.16 of the Disclosure Letter, there is no material insurance claim by any Seller Company or other direct or indirect Subsidiary of the Seller Companies engaged in the Business pending under any of the policies in respect of the Business.

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: and try to keep him from being an interruption to operations.” (Doc. 122-3 at 9). In making this argument, the Plaintiff fails to appreciate that less than one hour before Stanfill was placed in the restraint chair, he had tied a tourniquet around his arm, somehow removed a metal button from his prison jumpsuit, cut his wrist or arm, and sprayed blood across his cell. Even discounting Wheat’s claim that Stanfill expressly threatened suicide on July 2, given Carrick and Wheat’s familiarity with Stanfill’s history of self-mutilation, coupled with his most recent cutting incident on July 2, there was a need for the application of some force. Carrick and Wheat’s decision to use force was not unreasonable under the circumstances. See Campbell v. Sikes, 169 F.3d 1353, 1374-77 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). b. Relation Between Need and Amount of Force Options: A. holding that the decision of a police officer to preserve public safety and order through use of commands backed by threat of force or actual use of physical force is a matter of discretion B. holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody C. recognizing that use of l shaped restraint and straightjacket was a permissible use of force on prisoner who had taken affirmative acts towards harming herself and posed a serious threat of further selfharm D. holding that an officer cannot use deadly force unless a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm E. holding the use of deadly force is constitutionally permissible only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that use of l shaped restraint and straightjacket was a permissible use of force on prisoner who had taken affirmative acts towards harming herself and posed a serious threat of further selfharm
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: (finding interim ceiling principle to be admissible, but remanding for additional hearings); Brim, supra, 695 So.2d at 273 (finding ceiling principle, but not unmodified product rule, potentially to be admissible pending a hearing); Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 393 S.E.2d 436, 443-44 (1990) (finding unmodified product rule in admissible based on evidence of departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 413 Mass. 154, 596 N.E.2d 311, 314-16 (1992) (finding product-rule estimates by Cell mark to be in admissible; noting in dicta agreement with ceiling principles); Commonwealth v. Curnin, 409 Mass. 218, 565 N.E.2d 440 (1991) (rejecting Cellmark’s probability analysis as not being generally accepted at that time); State v. Bloom, 516 N.W.2d 159 (Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>); Carter, supra, 524 N.W.2d at 776-83 (ruling Options: A. recognizing principle but finding evidence at first trial sufficient B. recognizing problems with unmodified product rule and finding productrule calculation modified by ceiling principle to be admissible C. recognizing this principle as a settled rule D. recognizing principle E. recognizing same principle

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing problems with unmodified product rule and finding productrule calculation modified by ceiling principle 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: business, as well as the source of its revenues. In their motion, Defendants argue that LPI and LPHI are distinguishable entities and that, therefore, the Court should dismiss all of the claims that are based in part on LPI’s business since LPI is not a named Defendant in this case. The' Court disagrees. The record is literally stocked with evidence demonstrating that there is no meaningful difference between LPI and LPHI. For instance, LPI and LPHI share physical offices and have a consolidated Board of Directors. (Dkt. No. 135-4 at 7). Along the same lines, the two companies file consolidated financial statements and LPHI reports on LPI’s litigation in its annual reports.. (Id. at 10). Miller v. MSX-IBS Holding, Inc., No. 09-cv-15046, 2012 WL 458486, at *7 (E.D.Mich. Feb. 13, 2012) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, even LPHI’s employees and managers do Options: A. holding that the plaintiff that was engaged in the business of placement of contract personnel with other entities was required to be licensedregistered under the peaa B. recognizing that the lien granted is in consideration of one or more loans letters of credit or other financial accommodation made by jpmc pursuant to the clearance agreement C. holding a secured creditor has standing to appeal a ruling that impacted its financial interest in collateral D. holding that consolidated financials are usually necessary for a fair presentation when one of the entities in the consolidated group directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in the other entities E. holding that consolidated cases should be treated as single action for purposes of determining res judicata

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that consolidated financials are usually necessary for a fair presentation when one of the entities in the consolidated group directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in the other entities
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: “prejudice the filing of a paid complaint making the same allegations.” Id. Den-ton nowhere suggested that a § 1915(e) dismissal of an appeal from judgment allows a pro se litigant to challenge the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). On that point, the law in this circuit is clear: “a district court does not have jurisdiction to alter an appellate ruling where the appellate court has already considered and rejected the basis for the movant’s Rule 60(b) motion.” DeWeerth v. Baldinger, 38 F.3d 1266, 1270 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Eutectic Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 597 F.2d 32 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam)). Implicit in this court’s § 1915 dismissal of Searles’s appeal from the settlement judgment is a determination that he was bound by the settlement that he now challenges. See generally id. at 1271 (<HOLDING>). In such circumstances, a party may pursue a Options: A. holding that the law in this circuit is that errors of law are cognizable under rule 60b B. holding that while a district court lacks jurisdiction to deny a 60b motion while an appeal is pending it can certify that it will grant a 60b motion if the court of appeals remands the case for that purpose C. holding that rule 60b jurisdiction is lacking for appeals raising issues decided either explicitly or by necessary implication by this court D. holding that issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument are waived if either authority or argument is lacking not just if both are lacking E. holding that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to immediate appellate review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that rule 60b jurisdiction is lacking for appeals raising issues decided either explicitly or by necessary implication by 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: This Warrant, and the provisions, rights, obligations, and conditions set forth herein, and the legal relations between the parties hereto, including all disputes and claims, whether arising in contract, tort, or under statute, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without giving effect to its conflict of law provisions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is not transferable or assignable by the Subscriber. All notices or other communications to be given or made hereunder to the Subscriber shall be in writing and may be hand delivered or sent by fax, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, e-mail, or by a private overnight delivery service to the Subscriber’s address set forth below.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: Hospital, 911 F.Supp. 1213, 1221 (W.D.Mo.1995), aff’d, 69 F.3d 260, 269-70 (8th Cir.1995)(“[o]nee a relevant market has been established, the Court must next determine whether the proposed consolidation will have anti-competitive effects”). Plaintiffs have not shown any anticompetitive effects whatsoever that will result from the merger. Plaintiffs have simply made eonclu-sory allegations that the merged entity will have significant market power and that the merger will significantly limit competition without any evidence of the same. Also, there seem to be significant efficiencies realized from this merger that plaintiffs have failed to address. F.T.C. v. Butterworth Health Corporation, 946 F.Supp. 1285, 1300-02 (W.D.Mich.1996), aff'd., 121 F.3d 708, 1997 WL 420543 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Department of Justice and Federal Trade Options: A. holding that court had no supplemental jurisdiction over claim by shareholder for breach of merger agreement that was the subject of the dispute between the merger partners over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction B. recognizing exceptions to the continuous ownership requirement in certain merger cases C. holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court D. recognizing the efficiencies defense in merger cases E. recognizing defense in securities case

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the efficiencies defense in merger cases
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 Agreement and any related Purchase Commitment constitute the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the sale and purchase of each Mortgage Loan hereunder and thereunder and supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications regarding same. The Seller and the Purchaser understand and agree that no employee, agent or other representative of the Seller or the Purchaser has any authority to bind such party with regard to any statement, representation, warranty or other expression unless said statement, representation, warranty or other expression is specifically included within the express terms of the Agreement. The Agreement shall not be modified, amended or in any way altered except by an instrument in writing signed by both parties.

assistant: Entire Agreements