flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: hospitals. 13 . Even assuming for the moment that decedent was in state custody at the time of his death, the complaint’s failure to allege private violence — a failure about which we will have more to say subsequently — would render the special relationship exception inapposite. In that case, the questions simply would be those posed by the complaint's first claim for relief, namely, whether Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to decedent’s serious medi cal needs and whether that indifference caused a constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 198-199 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 998 (suggesting deliberate indifference is necessary to establish a substantive due process violation in a custodial setting); Sawyer v. County of Creek, 908 F.2d 663, 666 (10th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Leatherman v. Options: A. holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs B. holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs C. recognizing a state doctor may violate a detainees right to substantive due process by exhibiting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs D. holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs E. holding that pretrial detainees possess a constitutional right against deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs because the due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing a state doctor may violate a detainees right to substantive due process by exhibiting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
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 agrees to issue and sell to the Purchasers and, in consideration of and in express reliance upon the representations, warranties, covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Purchasers agree, severally and not jointly, to purchase the Shares . The closing of the purchase and sale of the Shares (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at the offices of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. located at 650 Page Mill Road , Palo Alto, California, three Business Days following the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in Section 2. 5 , or at such other time and place or on such date as the Principal Purchasers and the Company may agree upon (such date is hereinafter referred to as the “ Closing Date ”).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: cause of each of their injuries and therefore comprised two occurrences. Cf. Koikos, 849 So.2d at 272 (concluding that “using the number of shots fired as the basis for the number of occurrences is appropriate because each individual shooting is distinguishable in time and space”). Or even to the conclusion that each act of abuse or molestation was a separate occurrence. See Society of Roman Catholic Church v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 26 F.3d 1359, 1364 (5th Cir.1994) (applying Louisiana law, the court found that when thirty-one children were molested by two priests, the cumulative injury to each child constituted a separate occurrence with respect to claims against the church); See also Worcester Ins. v. Fells Acres Day Sch., Inc., 408 Mass. 393, 558 N.E.2d 958, 973-74 (1990) (<HOLDING>). However, the inquiry is irrelevant in this Options: A. holding that numerous discrete acts of abuse by several different defendants at different locations comprised more than one occurrence B. holding that the legislature intends different meanings when it uses different terms in a statute C. holding that an arbitrator was not bound by an earlier award involving a different contract and different union D. holding a defendant may not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence even if there was more than one victim E. holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that numerous discrete acts of abuse by several different defendants at different locations comprised more than one occurrence
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: conclude that all the evidence obtained by the police following their unconstitutional entry into appellant’s home — including appellant’s statements in the room, the video recording of activity in the room made by Officer Tobe’s body camera, and Mr. Ward’s property — should have been suppressed and was admitted at appellant’s trial in error. The government does not contend that this constitutional error was harmless. III. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. 1 . U.S. Const, a D.C.2001) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); emphasis in the original). For this purpose, we consider all the evidence admitted at trial, includ United States, 483 A.2d 1125, 1131-32 (D.C. 1984) (<HOLDING>)). As to appellant’s statements after the Options: A. holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt B. holding erroneous admission of evidence not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the only other evidence against defendant was the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating witness of questionable credibility C. holding that admission of statements obtained in violation of miranda was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the substance of the statements was introduced through other untainted testimony D. holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that admission of statements obtained in violation of miranda was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the substance of the statements was introduced through other untainted testimony
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: about the work, they lied about the money. They lied about the girls’ safety. And that is fraud.”); see also Defs.’ Ltr. at 3. In other words, the government’s theory was that the victims accepted employment with defendants and then “engage[d] in [the] commercial sex act[s]” that formed the basis for defendants’ prosecution only because of defendants “fraud.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). But the precluded line of inquiry — the victims’ prior places of employment and exposure to sexualized environments (as well as pri- or work as prostitutes) — bears directly on whether they were defrauded within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a); that is, whether they understood the terms and circumstances of their employment. Cf. United States v. Valenzuela, 2008 WL 2824958, at *3 (C.D.Cal. July 21, 2008) (<HOLDING>). The government argues that notwithstanding Options: A. holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime B. holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same C. recognizing that if the government introduced evidence tending to show that the victims did not expect to engage in prostitution it will have put those victims sexual histories at issue and under those circumstances it is possible that evidence rebutting the governments allegations might be admissible under the constitutional exception D. holding that evidence of a later sexual encounter that triggered the delayed report was admissible only after milligan had in fact introduced evidence of late reporting to impeach the victims testimony E. holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that if the government introduced evidence tending to show that the victims did not expect to engage in prostitution it will have put those victims sexual histories at issue and under those circumstances it is possible that evidence rebutting the governments allegations might be admissible under the constitutional exception
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Contract Period if the Executive becomes permanently disabled, or is unable to perform the Executive’s duties hereunder for 4 consecutive months in any 12 month period, the Company may terminate the employment of the Executive. In such event, the Executive shall not be entitled to any further benefits under this Agreement.

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: Developer shall secure in the name of Owner all warranties and guarantees of the work by the Contractor, suppliers and manufacturers of components of the Project. Such warranties shall be assigned to Owner. After final completion of the Project and during the period of time which any particular warranty survives, Developer shall assist Owner with enforcing any warranties or guarantees with respect to the Project upon request and shall be reimbursed for its reasonable out-of-pocket costs in connection therewith. If there is an opportunity to purchase extended warranties or guarantees from the Contractor or any subcontractor, manufacturer or supplier with respect to the mechanical systems, roof or structural components of the Project, Developer shall present such opportunity to Owner promptly upon Developer being made aware of the availability thereof. If Owner so elects, Developer shall purchase such extended warranty or guaranty at Owner’s cost for Owner’s benefit and Owner shall reimburse Developer for the cost of such extended warranty.

assistant: Warranties
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 inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by Employee’s heirs and beneficiaries. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Company and its respective successors, purchasers and assigns.

assistant: Successors
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: signing a written contract. See Gannon & Son v. Emerson, 291 Md. 443, 435 A.2d 449 (1981). See also Citaramanis v. Hallowell, 328 Md. 142, 613 A.2d 964 (1992) (denying restitution, under Consumer Protection Act, of rent paid to unlicensed landlord who had not been unjustly enriched); DeReggi Constr. Co. v. Mate, 130 Md.App. 648, 747 A.2d 743 (2000) (applying substan tial compliance doctrine to permit mechanics’ lien enforcement by contractor of contract with landowners, where, at the time of contracting, contractor had no license under the Montgomery County Custom Homes Protection Act, but was licensed before work began, and where there was no actual injury to landowners); and Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Whaley, 560 F.Supp.2d 425, 429, reconsideration denied, 572 F.Supp.2d 626 (D.Md.2008) (<HOLDING>). B. Other Authorities The authors of Corbin on Options: A. holding that the first amendment does not protect the use of racial invective by a public official against a member of the public in a bar B. holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors C. holding that application of licensing statute effective after unlicensed subcontractor entered construction agreement with contractor would impair obligations under the contract because contractor would be relieved of its obligation to pay for subcontractors services D. holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee E. holding that a subcontractors lack of a license under the act does not bar a claim for indemnity or contribution by the contractor in a suit by the homeowner against the contractor because the public policy embodied in the act and berenter is to protect the public not unlicensed contractors

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a subcontractors lack of a license under the act does not bar a claim for indemnity or contribution by the contractor in a suit by the homeowner against the contractor because the public policy embodied in the act and berenter is to protect the public not unlicensed contractors
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: 1176 (D.S.D. 2012); Ransom v. St. Regis Mohawk Educ. & Cmty. Fund, Inc., 658 N.E.2d 989, 993 (N.Y. 1995). It appears that being incorporated under State law rather than tribal law “militate[s] against sovereign immunity”. J.L. Ward Assocs., 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1176. 15 See Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distribs., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1150 (10th Cir. 2012) (“a separate legal entity organized under the laws of another sovereign, Oklahoma, cannot share in the Nation’s [i.e., the tribe’s] immunity from suit”). 16 See Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he College serves as an arm of the tribe and not as a mere business and is thus entitled to tribal sovereign immunity”); Dillon v. Yankton Sioux Tribe Hous. Auth., 144 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Weeks Constr., Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Hous. Options: A. holding that an inn which was a subentity of the tribe rather than a separate corporate entity enjoyed tribal immunity B. holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court C. holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws D. holding that the tribes housing authority was exempt from the adea a general statute because the tribal entity was not just a business but also functioned as an arm of tribal government by providing housing to tribe members E. holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe
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: sentence ran concurrently to the federal sentence, and not vice versa. This analysis fails to take into account the effect of the Brazos County sentence, which the TDCJ re-commenced on November 28, 1998, before Mr. Thomas was sentenced in the federal case. After his federal sentence was imposed, he was returned to state custody, still serving a state sentence from Brazos County. Any time he served before being transferred to Burleson County custody was thus state time, not federal time. Also, although the federal sentence was imposed prior to his Burleson County sentence, under the applicable law his federal time did not actually begin to run until he was taken into federal custody, which only occurred on April 5, 2006. See Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252, 1255 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Finally, we Options: A. holding that merely alluding to federal law does not raise a federal question B. holding that a federal sentence does not commence until a prisoner is actually received into federal custody for that purpose C. holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction D. holding that ncaa was not an indirect recipient of federal funds even though it received dues from schools that received federal funds E. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a federal sentence does not commence until a prisoner is actually received into federal custody for that purpose
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: Allstate and the Trustee have adequately pled their state-law claims, except as otherwise noted below. A. The Trustee Has Authority to Bring Tort-Based Claims on Behalf of Bondholders. The Court rejects Defendants’ contention that the Trustee has standing to bring only contract claims, as opposed to tort-based claims, on behalf of Bondholders. Generally, an indenture trustee, such as Wells Fargo, has standing to bring claims on behalf of bondholders only if the agreement creating the indenture trust grants the trustee the power to do so. Accordingly, the issue of an indenture trustee’s standing to bring claims on behalf of bond or debenture holders turns on the specific indenture language of each case. See, e.g., Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1280 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Was. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Options: A. holding that a trustee in a proceeding under chapter x of the bankruptcy act did not have standing to assert on behalf of the holders of debentures issued by the bankrupt in reorganization various negligence claims against an indenture trustee B. holding that the indenture trustee has a separate contractual claim for its fees and expenses C. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee D. holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of 12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients E. holding that the relevant indenture agreement allowed the trustee to bring tort and fraud claims on behalf of the bondholders

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the relevant indenture agreement allowed the trustee to bring tort and fraud claims on behalf of the bondholders
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: Walgreen Co., 386 Ill. at 39, 53 N.E.2d at 394, for instance, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that Illinois’ disqualification provision “makes every ‘factory, establishment, or other premises’ a unit for the purpose of ascertaining whether a stoppage of work due to a labor dispute exists.” The Indiana Appellate Court held in Blakely, 120 Ind.App. at d 658, 660 (Ky.1955) (noting that “establishment,” as used in the statute, “has no special or technical meaning” and can be defined as “a fixed geographical ‘place’.”); Abnie v. Ford Motor Co., 175 Ohio St. 273, 275, 194 N.E.2d 136, 138 (1963) (“The word, ‘establishment,’ has a clear and natural meaning as a distinct physical place of business.”); Abbott v. Employment Sec. Dep’t of State, 27 Wash.App. 619, 623, 621 P.2d 734, 736 (1980) (<HOLDING>). D. Resolution Applying this reasoning to the Options: A. holding individual defendants subject to suit B. holding that because the tcpa claims will require extensive individual fact inquiries into whether each individual gave express consent by providing their wireless number to the creditor during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed individual inquiries predominate over the class action C. holding that premises means each individual jobsite D. holding that based upon means similar to or supported by E. holding that there is no need for the agency to supply affidavits from each individual who participated in the actual search

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that premises means each individual jobsite
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, in any instance that consent of any party is required hereunder, such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed by the party having such consent right.

assistant: Consents
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 information (other than periodic reports filed by any Co-Borrower with the Securities and Exchange Commission) disclosed by any Co-Borrower to Collateral Agent or Lender in writing or through inspection pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered confidential. Collateral Agent and Lender agrees to use the same degree of care to safeguard and prevent disclosure of such confidential information as Collateral Agent and Lender uses with its own confidential information, but in any event no less than a reasonable degree of care. Neither Collateral Agent nor Lender shall disclose such information to any third party (other than (a) to another party hereto, (b) to Collateral Agent’s or Lender’s members, partners, attorneys, governmental regulators (including any self-regulatory authority) or auditors, (c) to Collateral Agent’s or Lender’s subsidiaries and affiliates, (d) on a confidential basis, to any rating agency, (e) to prospective transferees and purchasers of the Loans or any actual or prospective party (or its Affiliates) to any swap, derivative or other transaction under which payments are to be made by reference to the Obligations, any Co-Borrower, any Loan Document or any payment thereunder, all subject to the same confidentiality obligation set forth herein or (f) as required by law, regulation, subpoena or other order to be disclosed) and shall use such information only for purposes of evaluation of the creditworthiness of any Co-Borrower and the exercise of Collateral Agent’s or Lender’s rights and the enforcement of its remedies under this Agreement and the other Loan Documents. The obligations of confidentiality shall not apply to any information that (i) was known to the public prior to disclosure by any Co-Borrower under this Agreement, (ii) becomes known to the public through no fault of Collateral Agent or Lender, (iii) is disclosed to Collateral Agent or Lender on a non-confidential basis by a third party or (iv) is independently developed by Collateral Agent or Lender. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Collateral Agent’s and Lender’s agreement of confidentiality shall not apply if Collateral Agent or Lender has acquired indefeasible title to any Collateral or in connection with any enforcement or exercise of Collateral Agent’s or Lender’s rights and remedies under this Agreement following an Event of Default, including the enforcement of Collateral Agent’s and Lender’s security interest in the Collateral.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: guilt and inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” McNair v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 76, 86, 521 S.E.2d 303, 308 (1999) (en banc) (quoting Bishop v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 164, 169, 313 S.E.2d 390, 393 (1984)). Here, the defendant admitted possession of the fanny pack, which contained two screwdrivers and a pair of work gloves. Further, William Hagy told Officer Seitz that the crowbars and pliers located in the cargo area were used by both the defendant and William Hagy in their employment. Although the defendant denied possession of the other tools found throughout the car, the fact finder did not have to accept his explanation that he did not own or possess the other tools. See Marable v. Commo 390 S.E.2d 491, 498-99 (1990) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Castaneda v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 574, Options: A. holding that a defendant may be found to have taken a substantial step for the purpose of an attempt offense even though he or she has failed to gain possession of drugs or sham drugs B. holding evidence was insufficient to establish preponderance of evidence of appellants ability to control drugs where drugs found in compartment on back of passenger seat and appellant was sole backseat passenger C. holding evidence was insufficient to link defendant to drugs in borrowed vehicle when the drugs were not in plain view the defendant disavowed knowledge that drugs were hidden in floorboard of car and a person antagonistic toward defendants husband had access to the car before she borrowed it D. holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs E. holding evidence did not connect defendant to narcotics found in individual bags inside a larger bag in a car following the defendants car when the only connection was his fingerprints on outer bag and when the driver and passenger of the car in which the drugs were found exhibited nervousness and other factors indicating consciousness of guilt

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs
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: Cook’s death, they would have necessarily discovered why he could not answer those questions and could have timely pursued additional information to determine the identity of the officers who were actually involved in the pursuit as well. The Appellants’ failure to seek information from any one of these witnesses at an earlier date meant that they could not pursue any leads those witnesses provided in time to make a timely amendment. In view of these readily apparent avenues available to the Appellants and yet left entirely unexplored, they have merely evinced an earlier desire to know something and have not demonstrated they acted — with diligence or otherwise — in timely pursuing that knowledge. See Millennium Partners, L.P. v. Colmar Storage, LLC, 494 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Trustmark Ins. Co. v. General & Cologne Life Options: A. holding that good cause did not exist where movant was on notice of information that with some investigation would have led to timely discovery of the basis for the motion to amend B. holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion C. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion where it determined that plaintiffs failed to show good cause to amend complaint after dispositive motion deadline D. 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 E. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that good cause did not exist where movant was on notice of information that with some investigation would have led to timely discovery of the basis for the motion to amend
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: and , if we do expressly waive a provision of these terms , feature terms , the community rules , or our privacy policy that does not mean it is waived for all time in the future .

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: United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 640, 163 Options: A. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the armed career criminal act B. holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker C. holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment D. holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act E. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing as career offender

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the armed career criminal designation based on prior convictions does not violate the sixth amendment under booker
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the defendant made his confession, and the officer’s statement was one from which defendant could gather some hope of benefit by confessing.” Id. Thereafter, the trial court determined that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the defendant’s confession was made involuntarily. Id. Citing a number of supportive cases, the State argues that “[a] suggestion of hope created by statements of law enforcement officers that they will talk to the District Attorney regarding a suspect’s cooperation where there is no indication that preferential treatment might be given in exchange for cooperation does not render inculpatory statements involuntary.” State v. Houston, 169 N.C. App. 367, 375, 610 S.E.2d 777, 783 (2005); State v. McKinney, 153 N.C. App. 369, 375, 570 S.E.2d 238, 243 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the Options: A. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary B. holding that any inducement of hope must promise relief from the criminal charge to which the confession relates C. holding that the alien was entitled to performance by the government of its promise that the government would not oppose any of his motions for relief from deportation D. holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given E. holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that any inducement of hope must promise relief from the criminal charge to which the confession relates
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 9:00 a.m. on February 15, 1994 when she saw a glove near the curb outside of her house. She picked up the glove and placed it on her back porch, intending to throw it in the trash later. On the morning of February 16, 1994, after learning about the murders and talking with her son, she decided to call the police. 4 . In 1994, Bobby Burnett lived at 812 Maryland Avenue in Hagerstown. On February 17, 1994, he was walking along Spruce Street to pick up his children from the babysitter when he noticed the handle of a knife sticking out of the snow. He kicked it, but did not otherwise touch it. 5 . Accordingly, mtDNA analysis can be used on material without a nucleus, such as a bone sample or a piece of hair without a root segment. It can also be used on unknown samples t.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>); People v. Ko, 304 A.D.2d 451, 757 N.Y.S.2d Options: A. holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence B. holding mtdna testing sufficiently reliable to warrant its admissibility into evidence C. holding that the frye test of general acceptance in the scientific community was superceded by the federal rules D. holding trial court properly admitted evidence of mtdna analysis without first holding a hearing to establish reliability E. holding that frye test for admissibility was satisfied because expert used likelihood ratios to explain results of dna tests conducted on known mixed samples

assistant: The best answer is A. holding use of mtdna analysis to prove identity satisfied frye test for admissibility of new or novel scientific evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term (defined below), QTS LLC shall employ Executive as the CPO of the Company, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and Executive shall report directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the “ CEO ”), unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors of the General Partner (the “ Board ”). In addition, during the Term, Executive shall serve as the CPO of the General Partner and QTS LLC and shall report to the Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, unless determined otherwise by the Board.

assistant: Employment
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements between the Parties concerning such subject matter, including without limitation, any offer letter between the Company and the Executive.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of satisfying Section 13 of the Note, the undersigned Holder hereby consents to the amendments provided in this Amendment and further consents to the amendments associated with all other presently outstanding similar Notes issued in the related offering by the Company, on the same terms and conditions as provided in this Amendment.

assistant: Consents
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 Province and Fortress are unable to agree upon the Depreciated Book Value of any Removable Improvement or Structural Improvement, the Net Realizable Value of any Removable Improvement, the Structural Improvement Value of any Structural Improvement or the fair market value of the Day Skier Facility or the Maintenance Facility, either party may refer such determination to arbitration by a single arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act of British Columbia.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Investor has all necessary company power and company authority to execute and deliver the Transaction Documents, to perform its obligations hereunder and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the Transaction Documents by the Investor, and the consummation by the Investor of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly and validly authorized by all necessary company action, and no other company proceedings on the part of the Investor are necessary to authorize this Agreement or to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. This Agreement and the Transaction Documents have been duly validly executed and delivered by the Investor and, assuming due authorization, execution and delivery by the Company, constitutes a legally valid and binding obligation of the Investor, enforceable against the Investor in accordance with its terms (except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and subject to the effect of general principles of equity, whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law).

assistant: Authority
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: Nicholson alleges that defendants Doherty and Damiani required him to plead and stand trial when the mandatory probable cause hearing had not been held and when there was insufficient cause to support the charges against him. In addition, he alleges that defendant Damiani improperly ordered the information amended after trial. These actions are taken in a judge’s judicial capacity and are within the judge’s jurisdiction. Thus, defendants Damiani and Doherty are protected from suit for damages by a p.2d 602, 626-27 (D.Md.1999) (citing cases for the proposition that municipal departments, including the police department, are not persons within the meaning of section 1983); Gaines v. University of Pennsylvania Police Dep’t, No. 97-3381, 1997 WL 624281, at *3 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 1997) (<HOLDING>); PBA Local No. 38 v. Woodbridge Police Dep’t, Options: A. holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 B. holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under 1983 C. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983 D. holding that an ohio municipal court could not be sued under 1983 because it was not a person as 1983 uses that term E. holding as a matter of law that police departments are purely instrumentalities of the municipality with no separate identity thus they are not persons for purposes of 1983 and not capable of being sued under 1983

assistant: The best answer is E. holding as a matter of law that police departments are purely instrumentalities of the municipality with no separate identity thus they are not persons for purposes of 1983 and not capable of being sued under 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may not be orally amended, modified, extended or terminated, nor shall any oral waiver of any of its terms be effective. This Agreement may be amended, modified, extended or terminated, and the provisions hereof may be waived, only by an agreement in writing signed by the Company and the Requisite Investors; provided , however , that any amendment, modification, extension or termination that disproportionately and adversely affects any Holder shall require the prior written consent of such Holder. Each such amendment, modification, extension or termination shall be binding upon each party hereto and such Holder’s Permitted Transferees. In addition, each party hereto may waive any right hereunder by an instrument in writing signed by such party.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: unlawful possession of a firearm. Under Kansas law, the maximum possible sentence for this offense was twenty-three months — for a hypothetical offender with a more extensive criminal history. Additionally, under the Kansas sentencing scheme used at that time, the trial court could enhance a sentence, solely at its discretion, based on an expressly non-exclusive list of aggravating factors. Id. at 1148 n. 1. We held that because section 922 penalized anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year, Arnold’s prior conviction qualified as a pri- or felony. Id. at 1148. We noted that, “[w]hat matters is not the actual sentence which the appellant received, but the maximum possible sentence.” Id. See also United States v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1278, 1281-82 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The state of the law on this issue changed Options: A. holding that a felony drug offense is an offense punishable by more than one year as defined in 21 usc 80244 2000 regardless of whether the state of conviction classified the particular offense as a misdemeanor or felony B. holding that for purposes of applying enhanced penalty in 841b1a felony drug offense includes any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment regardless of whether it is classified as a felony or a misdemeanor C. holding that the mere possibility of an upward departure beyond one year qualifies a kansas offense as one punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year D. holding that determination of whether prior conviction was punishable by term of imprisonment exceeding one year is governed by law in effect on date of conviction E. holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the mere possibility of an upward departure beyond one year qualifies a kansas offense as one punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the privilege [against self-incrimination] and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify.' It is through immunity statutes supplanting the privilege that Legislatures have attempted to ease such tensions." Attorney General v. Colleton, 387 Mass. 790, 444 N.E.2d 915, 918 (1982) (citation omitted). 6 . 3 Whinery, supra note 4, § 43.56; see also City of Hollywood v. Washington, 384 So.2d 1315, 1319 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) ("Immunity from prosecution is a creature of statute."). Professor Whinery cites Texas as an example of a jurisdic tion where immunity is not statutory; instead, it is "derived from the so-called inherent power of prosecuting attorneys." 3 Whinery, supra note 4, § 43.56 & n. 6. 7 . Accord Hunter v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 24, 31, 72 P.2d 399, 402 (1937) (<HOLDING>); Eden v. State, 54 Okl.Cr. 265, 267, 21 P.2d Options: A. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case B. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness C. holding that before immunity under the provision at okla const art ii 27 can be given a witness such witness must have testified under an agreement made with the prosecuting attorney approved by the court or such witness must have claimed the privilege of silence which was by the court denied and such witness must have been compelled by the court to so testify D. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary E. recognizing that informing the jury that testifying witness has agreed to cooperate with the government is a doubleedged sword as the existence of such agreement may suggest either that the witness will testify in accordance with the governments wishes regardless of the truth or that the witness will not he under threat of revocation of the agreement should the witness commit perjury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that before immunity under the provision at okla const art ii 27 can be given a witness such witness must have testified under an agreement made with the prosecuting attorney approved by the court or such witness must have claimed the privilege of silence which was by the court denied and such witness must have been compelled by the court to so testify