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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Guaranty is a continuing guaranty and shall (a) remain in full force and effect until the payment in full in cash of the Guaranteed Obligations and all other amounts payable under this Guaranty (other than unasserted contingent indemnification amounts) and the termination of all Commitments and the Loan Documents, (b) be binding upon each Guarantor, its successors and assigns and (c) inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Agent, the Lenders and their respective successors, transferees and assigns. No Guarantor shall have the right to assign its rights hereunder or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the Agent (acting at the written direction of the Required Lenders).

assistant: Assignments
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: Donerson learned that Bantum’s friends wanted to rob and potentially kill Donerson. R. 312 at 2741. As a result, Donerson gave the third shipment only to Bantum’s contact for distribution. Id In May of 2013, the government charged Bantum and seven other individuals with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. R. 39 (superseding indictment). Bantum was also charged with two counts of unlawful use of a communications facility to facilitate drug trafficking. Id at 448. After a trial, a jury convicted Bantum of all three counts. R. 216 at 1616-18; R. 218 at 1624-25. The jury also found by special verdict that Bantum was responsible’ for distributing five or more kilograms of cocaine. Id II. Bantum argues that insufficient evidence supported his conviction. Specifically, he contend 6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Thus, that evidence alone would allow us to Options: A. holding that the defendants purchase or sale of a large volume of narcoticsin that case one kilogram of cocainecreates an inference that he is a willful member of the conspiracy B. holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the instrument C. holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy D. holding that while a simple buy and sell transaction is not sufficient for proof of a conspiracy repeated transactions for large quantities are sufficient to support an inference that the buyer and seller were engaged in a conspiracy E. holding that a close relationship between alleged conspirators and repeated large volume transactions were sufficient to establish a conspiracy

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendants purchase or sale of a large volume of narcoticsin that case one kilogram of cocainecreates an inference that he is a willful member of the conspiracy
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 consent to the terms and conditions in the gift points policy available at https://www.musical.ly/giftpointspolicy.html ( the `` gift points policy '' ) ;

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: EACH OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY CLAIM, DEMAND, ACTION, OR CAUSE OF ACTION (A) ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR (B) IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH OR RELATED OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEALINGS OF THE PARTIES HERETO IN RESPECT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED HERETO, IN EACH CASE WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING, AND WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, EQUITY, OR OTHERWISE. EACH OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY AGREES AND CONSENTS THAT ANY SUCH CLAIM, DEMAND, ACTION, OR CAUSE OF ACTION SHALL BE DECIDED BY COURT TRIAL WITHOUT A JURY AND THAT THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT MAY FILE AN ORIGINAL COUNTERPART OF A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT WITH ANY COURT AS WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES HERETO TO THE WAIVER OF THEIR RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 Plan and all agreements executed in connection with the Plan, and all disputes and controversies related thereto, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, without regard to its conflicts of law doctrine that would apply any other law.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 439 U.S. 459 99 S.Ct. 709 58 L.Ed.2d 733 Emerson E. HARLINv.State of MISSOURI. No. 77-6062. Jan. 15, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 On appeal of his criminal conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, petitioner contended that his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community had been denied by provisions of Missouri law allowing any woman who so elects to be excused from jury service. See Mo.Const., Art. 1, § 22(b); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 494.031(2) (Supp.1975). The record did not reflect that petitioner had raised this objection in timely fashion in the trial court, but because the trial court had considered and rejected the contention on its merits in connection with petitioner's motion for a new trial, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the issue under its "plain error" rule. Relying on its decision in State v. Duren, 556 S.W.2d 11 (1977), that court rejected petitioner's contention that the challenged provisions are invalid because they systematically exclude women from the jury-selection process. 556 S.W.2d 42, 44 (1977). The highest state court having reached and decided this issue, its judgment is subject to review in this Court. SeeJenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 157, 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2753, 41 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974). The petition for certiorari is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579. 2 So ordered. 3 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST dissents. 4 Mr. Justice POWELL, concurring in the judgments. 5 As I noted in my concurrence in Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 246, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 2347, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977), the Court's attempt to fashion a satisfactory retroactivity doctrine in the years since Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965), has not succeeded. I adhere to the view expressed in Hankerson that the wisest approach to this problem is that outlined by Mr. Justice Harlan in Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 675-702, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1171-1185, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971). That approach "contemplates, in rough outline, that courts apply a new rule retroactively in cases still pending on direct review, whereas cases on collateral review ordinarily would be considered in light of the rule as it stood when the conviction became final." Hankerson, supra, at 248, 97 S.Ct., at 2347. As all of these cases are before us on direct review, the application to them of the principles announced in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), and Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579, is proper. Accordingly, I concur in the judgments of the Court.

assistant: 2
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: has come to his knowledge since the trial; that it could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered for use at the trial; that it is so material and relevant that it will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; that it is not merely cumulative or impeaching in character; and that it is reasonably possible that the evidence will be produced at the trial. In re Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co., Del.Supr., 2 A.2d 273, 278 (1938) (citations omitted). These standards have long been the law of Delaware. See, e.g., Poole v. N. V. Deli Maatschappij, Del.Ch., 257 A.2d 241, 243 (1969); Kennedy v. Emerald Coal & Coke Co., Del.Supr., 42 A.2d 398, 404 (1944) (both cases quoting In re Missouri). But cf. Bachtle v. Bachtle, Del.Supr., 494 A.2d 1253, 1255-56 (1985) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ryan v. United States Lines Co., 303 Options: A. holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted B. holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment C. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence D. holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial E. holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 152 S.W.3d 54, 62 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). Reasonableness is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 63. It requires a balancing of the public interest and the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary detentions and intrusions. Id. A search conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable unless it falls within one of the “specifically defined and well-established” exceptions to the warrant requirement. McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609, 615 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1004, 124 S.Ct. 536, 157 L.Ed.2d 410 (2003); see Best, 118 S.W.3d at 862. However, before we reach reasonableness, we must first determine whether a search even occurred. Our sister court has held that a dog sniff of a front door is not a search. See Rodriguez, 106 S.W.3d at 228-29 (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. State, No. 01-02-00503-CR, Options: A. holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby B. holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch C. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search D. holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house E. holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed it was used as a main entrance to the house and it was not protected from observation by passersby
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: concerning the constitutionality of a statute are reviewed de novo.”); Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir.1998) (“Because the four provisions are challenged with regard to facial constitutionality, thus implicating only issues of law, ... our standard of review is de novo.”). B. Spending Clause challenge We start with first principles. The Spending Clause gives Congress the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. This authority includes the power to require states to comply with federal directives as a condi tion of receiving federal funds. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Congress may use its spending Options: A. holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy B. holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority C. holding that for federal court to grant full faith and credit to state court judgment state proceedings must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the fourteenth amendments due process clause D. holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion E. holding that congress may require each state to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 in order to receive its full share of federal highway funds

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that congress may require each state to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 in order to receive its full share of federal highway funds
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 parties to each assignment shall execute (except as otherwise contemplated in the penultimate sentence of Section 10.13) and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Assumption, together with a processing and recordation fee in the amount of $3,500; provided , however , that the Administrative Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment. The assignee, if it is not a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an Administrative Questionnaire.

assistant: Assignments
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: chapter 7 administrative creditors must be paid first. Kir Temecula contends § 365(d)(3) affords the landlord superpriority where it promptly obtains a court order enforcing its rights under this section. The case law is split on this issue, and there is no controlling Ninth Circuit au thority. The majority of courts hold the landlord is entitled to immediate payment except when it appears the estate is administratively insolvent. See In re Microvideo Learning Systems, Inc., 232 B.R. 602, 605-06 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1999) (siding with the “vast majority” of courts that adopt the majority view); In re J.T. Rapps, Inc., 225 B.R. 257, 261 (Bankr.D.Mass.1998) (summarizing the competing views and adopting the majority view); In re The Tandem Group, Inc., 61 B.R. 738, 741-42 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1986) (<HOLDING>). These courts reason the language of § Options: A. holding the landlord is not entitled to superpriority B. holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury C. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity D. holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan E. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the landlord is not entitled to superpriority
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: (1st Cir.1985) (applying Mass. Law). Utah requires proof under its consumer fraud act of either intent to deceive or knowledge of the falsity of defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations, while South Dakota requires proof of both knowledge and intent under its consumer fraud statute. Utah Code Ann § 13-11-4(2); Pace v. Parrish, 122 Utah 141, 247 P.2d 273 (1952); Iadanza v. Mather, 820 F.Supp. 1371, 1381 (D.Utah 1993); S.D.Code Ann. § 37-24-6; Stene v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 583 N.W.2d 399, 404 (S.D.1998). California and Pennsylvania require proof under their consumer fraud acts of justifiable reliance by plaintiff on defendant’s deceptive acts. Occidental Land, Inc. v. Superior Court of Orange County (Fahnestock), 18 Cal.3d 355, 134 Cal.Rptr. 388, 556 P.2d 750, 755 (1976); (<HOLDING>); Weinberg v. Sun Company, Inc., supra., 777 Options: A. holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law B. holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement C. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations D. holding in the context of a non 212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance E. holding that where material misrepresentations are made to class members an inference of reliance arises to the entire class

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any obligation of the Company to provide you the benefit described in this Agreement is conditioned on you signing and returning to the Company, a timely and effective general release of claims in the form that has customarily been used by the Company with similarly situated executives.

assistant: Releases
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: State made no effort to distinguish Cox; in fact, the State’s brief does not even cite Cox. As previously discussed, the State was required to prove that when Phares induced Daniel Walker to pay him money, Phares intended to unlawfully deprive Walker of the money, ie., to take the money without performing the agreed-upon work. See Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 31.01(3)(A), § 31.03(a); see also Wilson v. State, 663 S.W.2d 834, 836-37 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (To prove theft, the State must show intent to deprive the complainant of property at the time the appellant accepted remuneration pursuant to the contract.). On this record, there is no evidence from which such a deceptive intent can be inferred. See Cox, 658 S.W.2d at 669-71; see also Phillips v. State, 640 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>). As in Cox and Phillips, in the case sub Options: A. holding that a paywhenpaid clause does not preclude a subcontractors recovery under the miller act payment bond because the federal legislation conditions payment of the subcontractor not on payment by the government to the contractor but rather on the passage of time from completion of the work or provision of materials B. holding that an assignment was recognized by the government because the government issued a check made payable to the assignee as payment under the contract C. holding that payment made in reasonable belief that it was required by an insurance contract was involuntary D. holding that when the appellant and the complainants entered into a residential construction contract the complainants made a down payment and the defendant took measurements drew up plans but ultimately failed to perform under the contract the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant obtained the down payment by deception E. holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when the appellant and the complainants entered into a residential construction contract the complainants made a down payment and the defendant took measurements drew up plans but ultimately failed to perform under the contract the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant obtained the down payment by deception
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: RMS shall obtain and maintain insurance with responsible companies in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily carried by business entities engaged in similar businesses similarly situated, including without limitation, the insurance required to be obtained and maintained by the Agency pursuant to the Agency Guide, and will furnish the Purchaser and Agent on request full information as to all such insurance, and provide within fifteen (15) days after receipt of such request the certificates or other documents evidencing renewal of each such policy. RMS shall continue to maintain coverage, for itself and its Subsidiaries, that encompasses employee dishonesty, forgery or alteration, theft, disappearance and destruction, robbery and safe burglary, Property (other than money and securities), and computer fraud in an aggregate amount of at least such amount as is required by the Agency.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Byrne stole its confidential information, Defendants bear the burden to prove that confidential information does not exist. Under black letter Texas law, the party asserting that information is confidential has the burden to establish its confidential nature. Triple Tee Golf, 485 F.3d at 267 (“[Plaintiff] seems to confuse what constitutes a trade secret with the evidence necessary to prove that trade secret.... For [Plaintiff] to succeed on any of these claims, then, it must first prove that it in fact possessed (1) proprietary information, that was (2) valuable to its business” [emphasis in original]); In re Bass, 113 S.W.3d at 739-40(diseussing criteria by which claimant must meet its burden to establish trade secret protection); Chapa v. Garcia, 848 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Lasser v. Amistco Separation Products, Inc., Options: A. holding that supplier lists can be trade secrets under indianas uniform trade secrets act which uses the same definition of a trade secret as montana B. holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees C. holding that the inevitable disclosure theory can be applied under north carolina law where 1 injunction is limited to protecting specifically defined trade secrets and 2 the trade secret is clearly identified and of significant value D. holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation E. holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status
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 two cell towers in southwest Detroit, located approximately 20 miles away from the residence; and Andrew made calls that connected to two towers that were 6 to 8 miles away. Agent Hess assumed that each call was not diverted to a tower that was many sectors away to conclude that these three individuals were absent from the residence during the relevant time periods. While the assumption that a tower would not service a call made 10 or 20 miles away may be challenged — and indeed it was challenged at Reynolds’s trial — such a challenge speaks to the weight of the evidence, and not to its inherent reliability, because there are identifiable, measurable, and scientifically accepted factors that determine a cell tower’s maximum coverage range. See e.g., Jones, 918 F.Supp.2d at 5 (<HOLDING>). Reynolds made calls that connected to two Options: A. holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony B. holding that challenges to assumptions about the strength of the signal from a given cell tower go to the weight of the testimony not its reliability C. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony D. holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine E. holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that challenges to assumptions about the strength of the signal from a given cell tower go to the weight of the testimony not its reliability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a set of facts would give rise to reasonable suspicion, this court must look at the totality of the circumstances and not just each independent fact standing alone. Furthermore, the court may consider any added meaning that certain conduct might suggest to experienced officers in the field, trained in the observation of criminal activity.” United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919, 926-927 (8th Cir.2001). Based on the totality of facts discovered by Deputy Sheriff Brown during this consensual encounter, I conclude the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion to continue detaining the defendants for a reasonable period of time to investigate the circumstances and determine if the defendants were engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 805 (8th Cir.2000)(<HOLDING>). See also, Jones, 269 F.3d at 928 (holding Options: A. holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle B. holding that questioning of passengers on bus including asking for drivers licenses and tickets constituted consensual encounter and passengers were free to decline to answer questions C. holding presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed D. holding that if random suspicionless questioning of bus passengers for inspection of identification and tickets was consensual encounter it was not a violation of passengers fourth amendment rights E. holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop

assistant: The best answer is C. holding presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed
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 communications hereunder will be in writing and effective only on receipt, and, if sent to the Representatives, will be mailed, delivered or telefaxed to (i) Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 388 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013 Attention: General Counsel, facsimile number 1-646-291-1469.; and (ii) HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10018, Attention: Transaction Management Group (Facsimile Number 1-212-525-0238); or, if sent to the Company, will be mailed, delivered or telefaxed to Jonathan H. Baksht, Chief Financial Officer, 6 Chesterfield Gardens, London W1J5BQ, England, United Kingdom (fax no.: 44 0 207 409 0399) and confirmed to Michael T. McGuinty, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, 6 Chesterfield Gardens, London W1J5BQ, England, United Kingdom (fax no.: 44 0 207 409 0399) with a copy to Baker Botts L.L.P., 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, Attention: Tull Florey (fax no.: (713) 229-2779).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Section 11.16(b) and (c) of the Credit Agreement is hereby incorporated by reference herein. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING OR DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AMENDMENT NO. 6 OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PERSON HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PERSON WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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: a statement made under penalty of perjury that the information provided in the notice is accurate and that the notifying party is authorized to make the complaint on behalf of the copyright owner .

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: This Agreement shall become effective eight (8) days following the date on which Mr. Lumsdaine executes the Agreement provided that he pro v ides Healthways w i th the signed document and does not revoke it (" Effective Date ").

assistant: Effective Dates
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: Tenant will keep the Premises free from any mechanics', materialmen's, designers' or other liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by or for Tenant or any person or entity claiming by, through or under Tenant. If any such liens are filed, Tenant at its option may contest the validity of any lien or claim of lien, provided that within sixty (60) days after such filing (or sooner if such lien is impeding any sale or financing of the Premises), Tenant shall release the same of record or provide Landlord with a bond or other security satisfactory to Landlord protecting Landlord and the Premises against such liens.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Worth Sept. 24, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). When termination of parental rights is based on section D, the endangerment analysis focuses on the evidence of the child’s physical environment, although the environment produced by the conduct of the parents bears on the determination of whether the child’s surroundings threaten his well-being. In re S.M.L., 171 S.W.3d 472, 477 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Section D permits termination if the petitioner proves parental conduct caused a child to be placed or remain in an endangering environment. In re R.D., 955 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied). It is not necessary that the parent’s conduct be ervs., 969 S.W.2d 77, 82-83 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Third, Jordan knew Akin was not interested in Options: A. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with physically abusive father B. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with father who lived transient lifestyle with children C. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother endangered childs physical and emotional wellbeing by leaving child alone overnight with known cocaine abusers D. holding evidence legally sufficient under sections d and e E. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section e for endangering physical wellbeing of child based in part on evidence that mother remained with physically abusive person while she was pregnant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother endangered childs physical and emotional wellbeing by leaving child alone overnight with known cocaine abusers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Award and the Award Documentation applicable to the Award are governed by, and subject to the laws of the state of Delaware, without regard to the conflict of law provisions, as set forth in Section 10.J of the Plan. For purposes of any action, lawsuit, or other proceedings arising out of or relating to this Award, including without limitation, to enforce the Award Documentation, the Company and you each hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of any New York state court or federal court of the United States of America sitting in the State of New York, and any appellate court thereof. The Company and you agree that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law.

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: The Parent and the Company each will, and will cause each of the Material Subsidiaries and the other Loan Parties to, (a) keep and maintain all property material to the conduct of its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, except to the extent that failure to do so would not, based upon the facts and circumstances existing at the time, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and (b) maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by companies engaged in the same or similar businesses.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and destroying records. — Receives, withholds, destroys, mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, or record, or makes any false statement, relating to the estate or financial condition of the taxpayer or other person liable in respect of the tax; shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. 4 . This situation may be easily illustrated by visualizing two circles, a larger one representing the set of conduct violative of § 7201 and a smaller one representing the set of conduct violative of § 7206(5). The two circles intersect with the area within both circles repres 600, at *3 (4th Cir. Jul. 15, 1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Computer Sciences Corp., 689 Options: A. holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc 2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc 2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes B. holding that the government need not prove that interstate transport was foreseeable in order to obtain a conviction under 18 usc 2314 which prohibits the interstate transportation of stolen goods C. recognizing that the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce D. holding that puerto rico is a state within the meaning of 18 usc 1952 which prohibits interstate and foreign travel in the aid of racketeering enterprises E. holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for corrupt persuasion of a jury witness under either 18 usc 1503 which prohibits obstruction of justice or 18 usc 1512 which prohibits tampering with a witness

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc 2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc 2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes
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: either knew that Khan and Motey had inside information, or that he deliberately determined not to draw the obvious conclusion. See Svoboda, 347 F.3d at 480 (noting that the “same evidence that will raise an inference that the defendant had actual knowledge of the illegal conduct ordinarily will also raise the inference that the defendant was subjectively aware of a high probability of the existence of illegal conduct”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in instructing the jury on conscious avoidance. B. Knowledge of a Personal Benefit to a Tipper We have yet to decide whether a remote tippee must know that the original tipper received a personal benefit in return for revealing inside information. Compare United States v. Rajaratnam, 802 F.Supp.2d 491, 499 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Newman, No. 12cr121, Options: A. holding that agreement between chicago mercantile exchange and its members did not impart direct benefit to nonparty clearing member of exchange B. holding that a remote tippee must know that original exchange was given in exchange for benefit C. holding the suspension in abeyance in exchange for not exercising privileges D. holding that the witness had accepted immunity in exchange for no prosecution E. holding that exchange of mutual promises to devise is sufficient valid consideration

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a remote tippee must know that original exchange was given in exchange for benefit
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 issuance and transfer of shares of Common Stock in connection with the PUs shall be subject to compliance by the Company and the Participant with all applicable requirements of federal and state securities laws and with all applicable requirements of any stock exchange on which the Company’s shares of Common Stock may be listed. No shares of Common Stock shall be issued or transferred unless and until any then applicable requirements of state and federal laws and regulatory agencies have been fully complied with to the satisfaction of the Company and its counsel.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Polsby v. Shalala, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1940, 123 L.Ed.2d 646 (1993). Because the Supreme Court vacated Polsby on this ground, no meaningful argument can be made that the Supreme Court in any way addressed the merits of the present issue or concluded Polsby to be legally incorrect. See United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 983 F.2d 578, 581-82 & n.2 (4th Cir.1992) (adopting reasoning of vacated opinion where vacatur did not address the issue). In light of the Supreme Court’s action, we write on a clean slate. 2 . See Reed, 939 F.2d at 492-93. 3 . See Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Educ., 25 F.3d 194, 198-200 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 590, 130 L.Ed.2d 503 (1994); Passer v. American Chem. Soc’y., 935 F.2d 322, 331 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Bailey v. USX Corp., 850 F.2d 1506, 1509 Options: A. holding that the adeas parallel provision prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination B. holding employee under fair labor standard acts antiretaliation provision includes former employees C. holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration D. holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship E. holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra

assistant: The best answer is D. holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship
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 Secured Note shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of the State of DELAWARE WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICTS-OF-LAW PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF ANY OTHER LAW.

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: For services performed by Executive pursuant to this Agreement, Company shall pay Executive a minimum base salary at the rate of $300,000 per year (the “ Base Salary ”) payable in accordance with Company’s standard payroll practices. The Base Salary shall not be subject to reduction but may be increased at the discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “ Compensation Committee ”).

assistant: Base Salary