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: communications in those proceedings, free of the threat of legal actions predicated upon those communications, that is the heart of the rule. The nature of the underlying dispute simply does not matter.” Echevarria, 950 So.2d at 384. Because it is undisputed that the acts complained of here occurred during and were related to the judicial proceedings, we agree with the trial court that the litigation privilege applies to LatAm’s cause of action against Holland & Knight for abuse of process. See also Am. Nat’l Title & Escrow of Fla. v. Guarantee Title & Trust Co., 748 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (affirming the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the law firm in an action for abuse of process on the basis of a ., 935 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). The Florida Supreme Court has also Options: A. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy B. holding that the litigation privilege did not prohibit the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim because the confinement did not occur during the course of the judicial proceedings nor in an effort to prosecute or defend the lawsuit C. holding in the context of an attorney malpractice suit an insurance company is not vicariously liable for the acts of the attorney it selects to defend the insured while the insurer selected the attorney to defend the insureds and controlled the ultimate decision to settle or defend under the policy there is nothing in the record to indicate the insurer had any control over the details of the litigation as it was being conducted by the the attorney D. holding that even though the offense was not of a sexual nature requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender following his conviction for false imprisonment of a minor was rationally related to the government interest in protecting the public and did not violate the defendants right to due process or equal protection under the law E. holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the litigation privilege did not prohibit the plaintiffs false imprisonment claim because the confinement did not occur during the course of the judicial proceedings nor in an effort to prosecute or defend the lawsuit
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: Court’s] jurisprudence” and that a “burden of production” is placed on the party seeking to rebut the presumption of regularity). Moreover, under settled Virginia law, “[p]rior convictions may be proved by any competent evidence.” Perez v. Commonwealth, 274 Va. 724, 730, 652 S.E.2d 95, 98 (2007) (emphasis added) (citing Palmer v. Commonwealth, 269 Va. 203, 207, 609 S.E.2d 308, 310 (2005)); see also Wilson v. Commonwealth, 40 Va.App. 250, 254, 578 S.E.2d 831, 833 (2003). Evidence is competent for purposes of proving a prior conviction when that evidence requires “[n]o conjecture or surmise ... to reach [the] conclusion” that the defendant had indeed been convicted of the predicate offense or offenses. Perez, 274 Va. at 730, 652 S.E.2d at 98; cf. Palmer, 269 Va. at 207, 609 S.E.2d at 310 (<HOLDING>); Overbey v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 231, 234, Options: A. holding that a court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted B. holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely on the basis of conjecture or surmise C. holding a finding of fact by the commission may not be based upon surmise conjecture or speculation but must be founded on evidence of sufficient substance to afford a reasonable basis for it D. holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion E. holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and each of its Subsidiaries (a) has timely filed or caused to be filed all Tax returns and reports required to have been filed, except to the extent that failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, and (b) except to the extent that failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it, except any Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings; provided, that the Borrower or such Subsidiary, as the case may be, has set aside on its books adequate reserves therefor in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes, and the failure to pay such Taxes could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. No material Tax liens have been filed and no material claims are being asserted with respect to any Taxes.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to apply equitable principles if it is supported by substantial evidence”). Although the appeals officer noted that Dickinson’s cervical spine was “subject to differential and rule out diagnostic enquiry or treated incidental to the industrial residuals, [but was] never [an] accepted body part[ ],” the record contains no indication that the medical evaluations and treatment were so limited. Accordingly, while treating a nonaccepted condition for the noted reasons is not necessarily improper, it nonetheless appears that Dickinson might have reasonably relied on the administrator’s conduct as indicative of acceptance, invoking principles of equity. 17 NRS 616C. 150(1). 18 NRS 6160.175(1). 19 NRS 616C.160. 20 See Imperial Palace v. Dawson, 102 Nev. 88, 90-91, 715 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 21 NRS 233B.125. 22 State, Bd. Psychological Options: A. holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence B. holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident C. holding ec is not responsible for medical treatment required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment D. recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury E. holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Payment Free of Taxes . Any and all payments by or on account of any obligation of the Borrower under this Agreement or any other Loan Document shall be made without deduction or withholding for any Taxes, except as required by applicable law. If any applicable law (as determined in the good faith discretion of an applicable withholding agent) requires the deduction or withholding of any Tax from any such payment by a withholding agent, then the applicable withholding agent shall be entitled to make such deduction or withholding and shall timely pay the full amount deducted or withheld to the relevant Governmental Authority in accordance with applicable law and, if such Tax is an Indemnified Tax, then the sum payable by the Borrower shall be increased as necessary so that after such deduction or withholding has been made (including such deductions and withholdings applicable to additional sums payable under this Section 2.16) the applicable Recipient receives an amount equal to the sum it would have received had no such deduction or withholding been made.

assistant: Taxes
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: None of the reports or other information contained in the Data Room with respect to the Equipment, taken together with any information contained in the public filings made by Sprint with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not materially misleading.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Indenture may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original; but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. The exchange of copies of this Indenture and of signature pages by facsimile or PDF transmission shall constitute effective execution and delivery of this Indenture as to the parties hereto and may be used in lieu of the original Indenture for all purposes. Signatures of the parties hereto transmitted by facsimile or PDF shall be deemed to be their original signatures for all purposes.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party hereto shall do and perform or cause to be done and performed all such further acts and things and shall execute and deliver all such other agreements, certificates, instruments and documents as any other party hereto reasonably may request in order to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies only to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like, in that they are not known to the invitee, and would not be observed by [the invitee] in the exercise of ordinary care. The invitee assumes all normal, obvious, or ordinary risks attendant on the use of .App.1978). For that reason, liability requires notice to the owner or possessor, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition. Ward v. Temple Stephens Co., 418 S.W.2d at 938. A possessor will be deemed to have had actual notice if it is affirmatively shown that an agent or employee of the possessor created the dangerous condition. Id.; Asher v. Broadway-Valentine Center, Inc., 691 S.W.2d at 22-23 (Mo.Ct.App.1957) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the evidence was not so Options: A. holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law B. holding as a matter of law that natural condition present was open and obvious to all who would encounter it C. holding as a matter of law that a child of the tender age of 3 years and 8 months could not have realized the risk or danger of an artificial body of water D. holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger E. holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger

assistant: The best answer is E. holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
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: 1989), modified, 797 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1990).... Sterling, 822 S.W.2d at 11-12. The difficulty arises in deciding how to apply this legal standard. Britannia makes two alternative arguments regarding the legal standard for the “inextricably intertwined” exception: (1) The Legal Elements Standard. In determining whether the defense of the claims entails proof or denial of essentially the same facts, this court must consider the facts Britannia would have to prove for each element of the different claims to see if the claims are proven by the same factual allegations and legal elements. (2) The Impracticability Standard. To show that it falls under the “inextricably intertwined” exception, a party should have to introduce speci nture, 50 S.W.3d 531, 550-51 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); AU Pharm., Inc. v. Boston, 986 S.W.2d 331, Options: A. holding that contract and tort claims were capable of segregation in part because these claims required proof of different elements B. holding segregation was required in part because the claims have significantly different elements than the claim for which attorneys fees are recoverable C. holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims D. holding trial court should have required segregation because tort claims entailed proof of facts unnecessary for proof of the contract claim E. holding breachofcontract claim was preempted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding segregation was necessary because breachofcontract claim required proof of different elements than other claims
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 Amendment shall not itself be amended except with the written consent of the parties hereto, and, to the extent required by applicable law, rule or regulation, or rules and regulations of the national securities exchange on which the Company’s securities are listed for trading.

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: explicitly whether this is the correct interpretation of the Hayden-Cartwright Act. See Chickasaw Nation, 515 U.S. at 456-57, 115 S.Ct 2214 (“We decline to address this question of statutory interpretation” about whether “United States military or other reservations” includes "Indian reservations," because the government argued the point for the first time in its brief to the Supreme Court); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracket, 448 U.S. 136, 151 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (1980) (“We need not reach the more general question whether the Hayden-Cartwright Act applies to Indian reservations at all.”). Absent definitive guidance from the Supreme Court, we must decide this issue. 21 .But see In re State Motor Fuel Tax Liab. of A.G.E. Corp., 273 N.W.2d 737, 739 (S.D.1978) (<HOLDING>). 22 . Our nation’s aversion to state taxation Options: A. holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community B. holding that an indian reservation was a federal area subject to the haydencartwright act but analyzing the tax as levied on a nonindian contractor doing work for the bureau of indian affairs on tribal land C. holding that a tribe had no property interest in the continued operation of a bureau of indian affairs office on the reservation D. holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction to entertain a civil action filed by a nonindian against an indian for events that occurred on indian land E. holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an indian reservation was a federal area subject to the haydencartwright act but analyzing the tax as levied on a nonindian contractor doing work for the bureau of indian affairs on tribal land
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: Defendants — making it a likelier reference to the other Defendants who were on trial. The Government notes that the Court in Gray suggested “[m]e and a few other guys [beat the victim]” as an alternative to the improper redaction in the phrase “[m]e, deleted, deleted, and a few other guys [beat the victim].” 523 U.S. at 196, 118 S.Ct. 1151. But the language “a few other guys” is less specific than “others” as stated at trial, especially when coupled with Alexander’s identification of “the other individuals” as the four other Defendants just a few minutes earlier in Hodous’s testimony. Another issue implicates the Confrontation Clause. The analyses in Richardson, Gray, and Vasilakos assume the presence of a limiting instruction. See, e.g., Richardson, 481 U.S. at 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702 (<HOLDING>). Here, no limiting instruction was given to Options: A. holding that where a defendants name is replaced with a neutral pronoun as long as identification of the defendant is clear or inculpatory only by reference to evidence other than the redacted confession and a limiting instruction is given to the jury there is no bruton violation B. holding that when all references to the defendant in a eodefendants statement are replaced with indefinite pronouns or other general terms the confrontation clause is not violated by the redacted statements admission if when viewed together with other evidence the statement does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given C. holding that the clause was not violated by a redacted confession with a proper limiting instruction D. holding that when all references to the defendant in a codefendants statement are replaced with indefinite pronouns or other general terms the confrontation clause is not violated by the redacted statements admission if when viewed together with other evidence the statement does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given E. holding that the confession did not violate the confrontation clause because it was redacted to eliminate not only the defendants name but any reference to his or her existence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the clause was not violated by a redacted confession with a proper limiting instruction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that you will not publish , or submit to any part of the service , any content that is protected by intellectual property rights or otherwise subject to proprietary rights , including trade secret or privacy rights , unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from the rightful owner to upload , publish , or submit the content and to grant linden lab and users of the service all of the license rights granted in these terms .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will not, and will not permit any other Loan Party to, create or acquire any additional Subsidiary unless such subsidiary is a wholly-owned Subsidiary and the Borrower gives written notice to the Administrative Agent of such creation or acquisition and complies with Section 5.6 or such Subsidiary is designated as an Unrestricted Subsidiary in accordance with Section 5.6 ; provided that, for the avoidance of doubt, following designation of a Subsidiary as an Unrestricted Subsidiary, such Subsidiary shall no longer be required to be wholly-owned. The Borrower shall not, and shall not permit any Restricted Subsidiary to, sell, assign or otherwise dispose of any Equity Interests in any Restricted Subsidiary except in compliance with Section 6.7 or Section 6.8 , as applicable. Neither the Borrower nor any Restricted Subsidiary shall have any Restricted Subsidiary that is a Foreign Subsidiary.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: (“[When] the verdict is reversed [and] the case is remanded for new trial..., [i]f the denial of summary judgment is enumerated as error, OCGA § 5-6-34 (d) requires us to address that enumeration if it will affect the proceedings below.” (emphasis omitted)). 22 OCGA § 36-33-5 (a) (emphasis supplied). 23 OCGA § 13-6-11. 24 246 Ga. App. 524 (541 SE2d 92) (2000). 25 See Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Ass’n, Inc. v. City of McDonough, 322 Ga. App. 627, 629 (1) (745 SE2d 830) (2013). 26 See City of Statesboro v. Dabbs, 289 Ga. 669, 670 (1) (a) (715 SE2d 73) (2011) (“As is clear from the plain text of this statute, it applies to tort claims regarding personal injury or property damage . . ..”). 27 See Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Ass’n, 322 Ga. App. at 629 (1). Cf. Dabbs, 289 Ga. at 670 (1) (<HOLDING>); City of Atlanta v. Benator, 310 Ga. App. 597, Options: A. holding that antelitem notice statute did not apply to claims for violations of the open meetings act B. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act C. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act D. holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims E. holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that antelitem notice statute did not apply to claims for violations of the open meetings act
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: arbitration situs in the contract. Plaintiff reasons that, if the Court compels arbitration, this arbitration must take place in Georgia’s northern district. The Court, however, cannot rewrite the parties’ contract and provide an arbitration situs that was not enumerated in the forum selection clause of the arbitration agreement. See Snyder v. Smith, 736 F.2d 409, 419-20 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1037, 105 S.Ct. 513, 83 L.Ed.2d 403 (1984) (reversing district court’s order compelling arbitration in Illinois in contravention of forum-selection clause in contract’s arbitration clause designating Texas as the arbitration situs); National Iranian Oil Co. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 641 F.Supp. 211, 213 (S.D.Miss.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 943, 108 S.Ct. 329, 98 L.Ed.2d 356 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Section 4 and the federal policy favoring Options: A. holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause B. holding membership in new york stock exchange with concomitant obligation to be bound by arbitration provisions of its constitution and rules sufficient to constitute consent to arbitration of covered disputes whether or not arbitration provisions are specifically incorporated in contract C. holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision D. holding that 4 does not empower court to rewrite venue provisions of arbitration clause or to order arbitration within district absent contractual provision so indicating E. holding that district courts are required to compel arbitration of claims subject to arbitration clause even if the result is piecemeal litigation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 4 does not empower court to rewrite venue provisions of arbitration clause or to order arbitration within district absent contractual provision so indicating
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 court turns next to the truly disputed claims at issue on Farner-Bocken’s motion for summary judgment. In light of the foregoing analysis, those claims consist of claims of age and disability discrimination pursuant to state and federal statutes and a common-law claim of retaliatory discharge, in violation of public policy, for filing worker’s compensation claims. In considering the discrimination claims, the court will generally make no distinction between claims based on federal law and comparable claims based on state law. This is appropriate, because the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that federal precedent is applicable to discrimination claims under the Iovra Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Ch. 216. See Fuller v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 576 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Iowa 1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations omitted); and compare Options: A. holding that epilepsy qualifies as a disability under the ada B. holding that whether a person has a disability under the ada is an individualized inquiry C. holding plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and 504 D. recognizing that chapter 216s prohibition on disability discrimination is the statelaw counterpart to the ada and that in considering a disability discrimination claim brought under iowa code chapter 216 we look to the ada and cases interpreting its language we also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the equal employment opportunity commission hereinafter eeoc the agency responsible for enforcing the ada E. recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that chapter 216s prohibition on disability discrimination is the statelaw counterpart to the ada and that in considering a disability discrimination claim brought under iowa code chapter 216 we look to the ada and cases interpreting its language we also consider the underlying federal regulations established by the equal employment opportunity commission hereinafter eeoc the agency responsible for enforcing the ada
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 appellant’s rights to access the Marketplace District has been adversely affected by the trespass ordinance. They therefore do not have standing under McCullen. Where individuals received no-trespass orders and were prevented from attending a speech by Ms. Baird on Church Street, it would be for those individuals to seek relief, not Ms. Baird. ¶ 15. Appellants’ argument is therefore similar to those in cases where plaintiffs have unsuccessfully attempted to assert third-party standing on behalf of others. See Bischoff v. Bletz, 2008 VT 16, ¶ 16, 183 Vt. 235, 949 A.2d 420 (finding that plaintiffs’ contract with defendants did not give them standing to challenge third party’s contract with defendants); see also State v. Karov, 170 Vt. 650, 652, 756 A.2d 1236, 1238-39 (2000) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Like the federal courts, we generally do not Options: A. holding that if defendant moved for or consented to mistrial retrial of defendant was not barred on double jeopardy grounds B. holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy C. holding that 2241 was the proper statute for the petitioners pretrial double jeopardy challenge D. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court E. holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy
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: appeals of an “order issued ... under” Part A. 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). The ROD is a single order containing multiple determinations and findings; it is not a collection of several different orders. By its plain language, the statute does not limit review to claims based on Part A. Therefore, once the order is before an appellate court under § 46110(a), the court may consider a challenge to any part of it. Cf. Sutton, 38 F.3d at 624-26 (construing predecessor statute); City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 936 (D.C.Cir.1979) (“[W]e cannot imagine that Congress intended the exclusivity vel non of statutory review to depend on the substantive infirmity alleged.”). But see City of Alameda v. FAA, 285 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1899, 155 L.Ed.2d 842 (2003) (<HOLDING>). We therefore have jurisdiction to review the Options: A. holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal B. recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part C. holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement D. holding that a counterclaim which appears as part of the defendants answer not as part of the plaintiffs complaint cannot served as the basis for arising under jurisdiction E. holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district 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: Executive shall reasonably cooperate with the Company regarding any and all legal proceedings or potential legal proceedings at the request of the Company that in any way relate to events that are alleged to have occurred or alleged to have failed to occur during Executive’s employment with the Company. Executive shall also reasonably cooperate with the Company to transition his duties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: based on facts found by the judge that were neither admitted by the defendant nor found by the jury. Booker, 543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. at 749-56, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Booker constitutional error is the use of extra-verdict enhancements to reach a Guidelines result that is binding on the sentencing judge. Mathenia, 409 F.3d at 1291. The Booker non-constitutional, or statutory, error occurs when the district court sentences a defendant under a mandatory sentencing scheme, even in the absence of a Sixth Amendment enhancement violation. Id. Because Taylor admitted the facts underlying the enhancement for obstruction of justice, no constitutional Booker error occurred when his sentence was enhanced based on those facts. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329-30 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Although the district court did not engage in Options: A. holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of 841b1c B. holding that if sentence does not exceed maximum authorized by facts admitted by defendant or found by jury there is no sixth amendment violation C. holding that there was no sixth amendment violation where judicial factfinding of a drug quantity greater than the amount alleged in the indictment did not go beyond the facts admitted by the defendant D. holding that the sixth amendment does not require factfinding by a jury for purposes of calculating the amount of restitution E. holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there was no sixth amendment violation where judicial factfinding of a drug quantity greater than the amount alleged in the indictment did not go beyond the facts admitted by the defendant
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, together with the Credit Agreement, constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the parties to this Warrant with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter. In the event of any inconsistency between the statements in the body of this Warrant and the Credit Agreement, the statements in the body of this Warrant shall control.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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 consideration of the obligations undertaken by the Corporation herein, Executive will not, at any time during or after the Term, directly or indirectly, use for Executive’s own benefit or any other party’s benefit, or reveal, divulge or make known to any person, any information which is treated as confidential by the Corporation and not otherwise in the public domain. Confidential information shall not include information which was previously known by Executive, information which was given to Executive by any third party under no obligation of confidentiality, or information which Executive is required to disclose as a result of a governmental investigation or by a court order. Executive agrees that all materials or copies thereof containing confidential information of the Corporation in Executive’s custody or possession will not, at any time, be removed from the Corporation’s premises without the prior written consent of the Board. The parties hereto acknowledge that pursuant to 18 USC § 1833(b), an individual may not be held liable under any criminal or civil federal or state trade secret law for disclosure of a trade secret: (i) made in confidence to a government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney, solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law or (ii) in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. The parties hereto further acknowledge that an individual suing an employer for retaliation based on the reporting of a suspected violation of law may disclose a trade secret to his or her attorney and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, so long as any document containing the trade secret is filed under seal and the individual does not disclose the trade secret except pursuant to court order.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and thereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that neither the Borrowers nor any other Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder or thereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an Eligible Assignee in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this Section, (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of this Section, or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of subsection (f) of this Section (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in subsection (d) of this Section and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent, the L/C Issuer and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Loan Documents and any claim, controversy, dispute or cause of action (whether in contract or tort or otherwise) based upon, arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document (except, as to any other Loan Document, as expressly set forth therein) and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of law principles except Title 14 of Article 5 of the New York General Obligations law. Each Standby Letter of Credit issued under this Agreement shall be subject either to the rules of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, as most recently published by the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ ICC ”) at the time of issuance (“ UCP ”) or the rules of the International Standby Practices (ICC Publication Number 590) (“ ISP98 ”), as determined by the Issuing Lender, and each Trade Letter of Credit shall be subject to, and in each case to the extent not inconsistent therewith, the Laws of the State of New York.

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: Whenever used in this Agreement, the singular shall be construed to include the plural and vice versa, where applicable, and the use of the masculine, feminine or neuter gender shall include the other genders. The subject matter and language of this Agreement has been the subject of negotiations between the parties and their respective counsel, and this Agreement has been jointly prepared by their respective counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement shall not be construed against any party on the basis that this Agreement was drafted by such party or its counsel. Headings of section and subsections are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be construed as a part of this Agreement, or as limiting or defining the scope of any term or provision hereof.

assistant: Construction
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 counsel case, that court’s inherent supervisory power over courts is well settled); State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629, 650 (Utah 1995) (advising, pursuant to inherent supervisory power, that trial courts should be more conservative when making for-cause determinations regarding potential jurors in capital eases); State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 407 n. 7 (Utah 1994) (stating that language changes made in other cases to burden of proof instruction were undertaken pursuant to court’s supervisory power over lower courts); State v. Thurman, 846 P.2d 1256, 1266, 1271-72 (Utah 1993) (observing that court has “inherent supervisory authority over all courts of this state” and invoking that authority to establish appropriate standards of review); State v. Brown, 853 P.2d 851, 857 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 965 (Utah Options: A. holding courts have inherent authority to compel compensation for an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant B. recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts C. holding that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 1983 claims D. holding pursuant to courts inherent supervisory power over courts that counsel with concurrent prosecutorial obligations may not be appointed to defend indigent persons E. recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals

assistant: The best answer is D. holding pursuant to courts inherent supervisory power over courts that counsel with concurrent prosecutorial obligations may not be appointed to defend indigent persons
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 Administrative Agent, each Issuing Lender and each Lender agrees to keep confidential all non-public information provided to it by any Loan Party or its affiliates, the Administrative Agent, any Issuing Lender or any Lender pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement that is designated by the provider thereof as confidential; provided that nothing herein shall prevent the Administrative Agent or any Lender from disclosing any such information (a) to the Administrative Agent, any other Lender or any affiliate thereof, (b) subject to an agreement to comply with the provisions of this Section, to any actual or prospective Transferee or any direct or indirect counterparty to any Swap Agreement (or any professional advisor to such counterparty), (c) to its employees, directors, agents, attorneys, accountants and other professional advisors or those of any of its affiliates, (d) upon the request or demand of any Governmental Authority, (e) in response to any order of any court or other Governmental Authority or as may otherwise be required pursuant to any Requirement of Law, (f) if requested or required to do so in connection with any litigation or similar proceeding, (g) that has been publicly disclosed, (h) to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners or any similar organization or any nationally recognized rating agency that requires access to information about a Lender’s investment portfolio in connection with ratings issued with respect to such Lender, or (i) in connection with the exercise of any remedy hereunder or under any other Loan Document, (j) to data service providers, including league table providers, that serve the lending industry (but, in the case of this clause (j), solely to the extent that (i) such Information is information about the terms of the financing contemplated hereby routinely provided by arrangers to data services providers and (ii) such Information is provided to such data service providers no earlier than the fifth Business Day after the Closing Date) or (k) if agreed by the Borrower in its sole discretion, to any other Person.

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: pending removal, upon the posting of a $5,000 bond. The Release concedes that “removal does not appear reasonably foreseeable at this time,” and does not state that Shokeh is a danger to the community. Shokeh has not posted bond and therefore remains in custody. Shokeh filed a habeas petition challenging the imposition of bond as a condition of his release. The district court, citing 8 C.F.R. § 241.5, denied Shokeh’s petition and dismissed it with prejudice, reasoning that bond is a permissible condition of supervised release. Shokeh timely filed a notice of appeal; this appeal follows. II. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction to review a confined immigrant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 312-13, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (<HOLDING>). See also Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, Options: A. holding that habeas jurisdiction under 2241 was not repealed by the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 iirira B. holding that iirira 309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc 2241 C. holding that neither the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 nor the illegal immigration reform act of 1996 repealed the district courts jurisdiction to review aliens habeas petitions D. holding that a 2241 petitioners claim was not cognizable under 2241 and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction E. holding that iirira does not remove statutory habeas jurisdiction because it does not contain express language repealing 2241 and because to do so would violate the separation of powers doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that habeas jurisdiction under 2241 was not repealed by the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 iirira