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: The Agreement will be interpreted and applied in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of New York, U.S.A. without giving effect to its choice of law or conflict of law provisions, rules or procedures (except to the extent that the validity, perfection or creation of any lien or security interest hereunder and the exercise of rights or remedies with respect of such lien or security for particular items of equipment are governed by the laws of jurisdiction other than New York) and excluding the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. To the extent that Customer or any of its property is or becomes entitled at any time to any immunity on the grounds of sovereignty or otherwise from any legal action, suit or proceeding, from set-off or counterclaim, from the jurisdiction of any competent court, from service of process, from attachment prior to judgment, from attachment in aid of execution, or from execution prior to judgment, or other legal process in any jurisdiction, Customer for itself and its property does hereby regularly, irrevocably and unconditionally waives the application of such immunity and particularly, the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1602, et. seq., and agrees not to plead or claim, any such immunity with respect to its obligations, liabilities or any other matter under or arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the subject matter hereof. Such agreement shall be irrevocable and not subject to withdrawal in any and all jurisdictions.

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: Fee . Agent and Lenders have determined not to charge Borrowers a fee in connection with this Agreement. Agent and Lenders reserve the right to charge a fee in connection with any future amendment, waiver, consent, or other accommodation provided to Borrowers.

assistant: Waivers
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: L.Ed.2d at 1035-86). Unfortunately, the adjective "readily" is subject to differing interpretations, and there has been disagreement regarding the meaning of "readily mobile." Decisions of the Indiana Court of Appeals are not consistent regarding whether automobiles under police observation or control are readily mobile so as to be subject to warrantless search under the automobile exception. E.g., compare, v. State, T5 N.E.2d 1207, 1211 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (legally parked automobile surrounded by police officers held not inherently mobile to qualify for automobile exeeption), transfer denied, and Edwards v. State, 768 N.E.2d 506, 508-09 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (impounded vehicle no longer "inherently mobile"), trams. not sought, with Johnson v. State, 766 N.E2d 426, 483 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (<HOLDING>), trans. demied, and Justice v. State, 765 Options: A. holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver B. holding that ready mobility existed when a car was capable of being driven even after the driver was arrested and despite the absence of other potential drivers C. holding that ocga 40520 as safeharbor provision requires a defendant to produce a drivers license that was valid at the time the vehicle was being driven D. holding warrantless search of vehicle was improper where car was not stopped on a highway but was parked at a residence with no occupants inside or near the vehicle and capable of being driven away by the turn of an ignition key E. holding detention lawful when police referred driver to secondary to check ownership of the vehicle after the driver admitted that the car did not belong to him and the registration revealed that the car was owned by another

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ready mobility existed when a car was capable of being driven even after the driver was arrested and despite the absence of other potential drivers
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: advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant subsequently gave a statement. Id. 476. The court held that the detective’s statements at the jail cell did not constitute interrogation. Id. at 479-480. The court further determined that the defendant, by stating that he wanted to tell his side of the story, “ ‘initiated’ further conversation in the ordinary dictionary sense of that word.” Id. at 480. Similarly, in Bunch v Thompson, 949 F2d 1354, 1361 (CA 4, 1991), the court held that a defendant’s statement was not the product of “police-initiated interrogation” where it followed an inquiry that “amounted to nothing more than an effort to ascertain if Bunch had changed his mind about wanting an attorney.” See also McCall v State, 501 So 2d 496, 500 (Ala Crim App, 1986) (<HOLDING>); State v Acquin, 187 Conn 647, 669-670; 448 Options: A. holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime B. holding that although interrogation may not continue after a suspect has requested counsel the police legitimately may inquire whether the suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney C. holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation D. holding that prosecutors who soon after arrest of suspect allegedly directed police to coerce confession from suspect were not entitled to absolute immunity because interrogation is ordinarily a police activity E. holding that once a suspect has requested counsel interrogators may not reinitiate questioning unless the attorney is present regardless of whether or not there has been an outside consultation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that although interrogation may not continue after a suspect has requested counsel the police legitimately may inquire whether the suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney
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: Hughes has at least called into question whether the benefit of Wells Fargo’s payment and debt consolidation was “substantial” in light of the increase in Hughes’s monthly payment. Finally, Hughes alleges that Wells Fargo has “knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the consumer reasonably to protect his interests.” D.C.Code § 28-3904(r)(5). In support of this factor, Hughes asserts that a representative from a settlement company retained by Wells Fargo had Hughes “sign a stack of papers” but only gave Hughes “unsigned copies” and that “no notary was present.” Am. Compl. ¶40. This alleged lack of formal procedures to close the loan may be a poor business practice, but alone does not suggest Hughes’s inability to understand Wells Fargo’s terms. See Williams, 225 F.3d at 744-45 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 451 F.Supp.2d at 38 (holding that Options: A. holding that plaintiff who had an eleventh grade education and who held no licenses did not satisfy the trained personnel exception even though having past experience as a health aide B. holding an accused with a sixth or seventh grade education who testified at suppression hearing that he had asked for a lawyer although disbelieved by the trial court indicated his familiarity with his rights C. holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim D. holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade E. holding that completing sixth grade and a limited ability to read were not inconsistent with a valid iq score of 68

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is subject to the laws of the State of Ohio, with venue in Franklin County, over any dispute arising out of this Agreement and agrees that all claims in respect of such dispute or proceeding shall be heard and determined in such court.

assistant: Applicable 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: (reversing and remanding for determination of whether permissive intervention should have been allowed, where district court did not previously rule on question and where appellate court concluded that to permit it would not constitute an abuse of discretion). On appeal, however, we have a duty to determine if such an error was harmless. See Halderman v. Pennhurst State School & Hosp., 612 F.2d 131, 134 (3d Cir.1979) (applying harmless-error analysis to denial of motion to intervene for the purpose of appealing). Since we have considered all of the Task Force’s claims in this appeal, we conclude that the denial of its motion to intervene permissively constituted harmless error. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Freeman, 708 F.2d 1571, 1575 (11th Cir.1983) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Washington State Bldg. & Constr. Trades Options: A. holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court B. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court C. holding that failure to permit intervention was harmless where the appellate court considered the defendants claim as if the district court had al lowed them to intervene D. holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial E. holding that appellate court may infer that district court considered sentencing guidelines policy statements despite district courts failure to make explicit reference to them

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that failure to permit intervention was harmless where the appellate court considered the defendants claim as if the district court had al lowed them to intervene
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 concluded that: “Squatters’ Row” on Sand Island has been allowed to exi , 1240 (1991) (finding that Fourth Amendment was not applicable to trespasser in house); People v. Sumlin, 105 Misc.2d 134, 431 N.Y.S.2d 967, 970 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1980) (determining that guest of squatter did not have Fourth Amendment rights in apartment where squatter was staying). Other courts, like this Court, utilizing the objectively reasonable standard, have determined that “squatters” do not have standing to challenge the legality of a search of the premises in which they stayed. See Zimmerman v. Bishop, 25 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir.1994) (concluding that Fourth Amendment rights of guest of squatter were not violated by search of shack on another’s property); Davis v. State, 119 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex.App.2003) (<HOLDING>); Woodson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 621, 491 Options: A. holding that squatter had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no fourth amendment standing to challenge search of abandoned structure B. holding that defendant could challenge search of luggage belonging to overnight guests staying in his house C. holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house D. holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying E. holding that a squatter had no standing to challenge search of vacant home he frequented for the sole purpose of engaging in drugrelated business transactions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying
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: if it: (1) “legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment,” (2) “upon an identifiable individual,” and (3) “without provision of the protections of a judicial trial”). The enabling act establishing the Board and its duties does not meet these criteria. 2. The district court properly dismissed Read’s claims against Administrative Law Judge Gutman on the basis of judicial immunity. Read failed to a the Oregon Medical Board was not error. The district court properly applied Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), and Mishler v. Clift, 191 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 1999), in determining that the Board members’ functions were sufficiently analogous to those of a judge or prosecutor. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1009 Options: A. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board B. holding that members of idaho state board of medicine their staff and their counsel were entitled to absolute immunity under butz and mishler C. holding that the nevada state board of medical examiners and its members are functionally comparable to judges and prosecutors and are entitled to absolute immunity for their quasijudicial acts D. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony E. recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that members of idaho state board of medicine their staff and their counsel were entitled to absolute immunity under butz and mishler
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: by the board.” This statement should be read as distinguishing "general claims” from the more “specific” tax claims the court found to be specially exempt from the jurisdictional requirements of § 15.2-1248, and not as a limitation upon what type of plaintiff is subject to those requirements. 7 . As shown infra, the plaintiffs fraud claim is the only remaining state claim he may maintain against the individual county defendants to which § 15.2-1248 might apply. 8 . The court does not hereby grant the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The question of whether leave to amend should be granted is a separate inquiry, which involves a variety of considerations. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15; International Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschi-nen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 420 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). This inquiry is not presently before the Options: A. holding that leave to amend should be freely given unless there is a good reason such as futility to the contrary B. holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend C. holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint D. holding that it is abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend absent a clear or declared reason such as delay bad faith prejudice or a repeated failure to cure a problem in the complaint E. holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: At any time and from time to time after the Issuance Date, the Company shall have the right to redeem all or any portion of the Conversion Amount then remaining under this Note and the Other Notes (the " Company Optional Redemption Amount ") as designated in the applicable Company Optional Redemption Notice on a Company Optional Redemption Date (each as defined below) (a " Company Optional Redemption "). The portion of this Note and the Other Notes subject to redemption pursuant to this Section 9(a) shall be redeemed by the Company on the applicable Company Optional Redemption Date (as defined below) in cash by wire transfer of immediately available funds pursuant to wire instructions provided by the Holder in (a " Company Optional Redemption Price "). The Company may exercise its right to require redemption under this Section 9 by delivering prior written notice thereof three (3) Trading Days prior to the applicable Company Optional Redemption Date (as defined below) by facsimile or electronic mail and overnight courier to the Holder and all, but not less than all, of the holders of the Other Notes (a " Company Optional Redemption Notice " and the date all of the holders of the Notes received such notice is referred to as a " Company Optional Redemption Notice Date "). Each Company Optional Redemption Notice shall be irrevocable. Each Company Optional Redemption Notice shall (i) state the date on which the applicable Company Optional Redemption shall occur (a " Company Optional Redemption Date "), which date shall be three (3) Trading Days following the applicable Company Optional Redemption Notice Date or and (ii) state the aggregate Conversion Amount of the Notes which the Company has elected to be subject to Company Optional Redemption from the Holder and all of the holders of the Other Notes pursuant to this Section 9(a) (and analogous provisions under the Other Notes) on such Company Optional Redemption Date. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 9, until the applicable Company Optional Redemption Price is paid in full, such Company Optional Redemption Amount may be converted, subject to Section 3(d), in whole or in part, by the Holder into shares of Common Stock pursuant to Section 3. All Conversion Amounts converted by the Holder after a Company Optional Redemption Notice Date shall reduce the Company Optional Redemption Amount of this Note required to be redeemed on such Company Optional Redemption Date, unless the Holder otherwise indicates in the applicable Conversion Notice. Company Optional Redemptions made pursuant to this Section 9 shall be made in accordance with Section 13. To the extent redemptions required by this Section 9 are deemed or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be prepayments of the Note by the Company, such redemptions shall be deemed to be voluntary prepayments.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All computations of interest and of fees shall be made by Administrative Agent on the basis of a fraction, the denominator of which is three hundred sixty (360) and the numerator of which is the actual number of days elapsed from the Closing Date or the date of the preceding Payment Date, as the case may be, to the date of the next Payment Date or the Maturity Date. Each determination of an interest rate or the amount of a fee hereunder shall be made by Administrative Agent and shall be conclusive, binding and final for all purposes, absent manifest error.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has no direct or indirect subsidiaries other than those listed in Schedule 3.1 (a) hereto. Except as disclosed in Schedule 3.1(a) hereto, the Company owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock or comparable equity interests of each Subsidiary free and clear of any and all Liens, and all the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock or comparable equity interests of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities.

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: have contributed to [Petitioner’s] conviction,” Sawyer, 88 Hawai'i at 329 n. 6, 966 P.2d at 641 n. 6 (emphases added), for attempted murder in the second degree as opposed to attempted EMED manslaughter. The misconstruction of the law and the lack of curative instruction bore directly on Petitioner’s EMED defense. Hence, the reasonable “possibility” that the error “might” have contributed to Petitioner’s conviction for attempted murder rather than attempted EMED manslaughter was plainly established. Id. However, because it cannot be said that the prosecutor’s conduct was so egregious that viewed under an objective standpoint, Petitioner was denied his or her right to a fair trial, reprosecution is not barred under the double jeopardy clause. Rogan, 91 Hawai'i at 423, 984 P.2d at 1249 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). XI. Respondent cites to Options: A. holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases B. holding that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the constitution C. holding that appellant was deprived of a fair trial where the jury was instructed in such a way that it was not required to find at least two elements of the offense of capital murder to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt D. holding that appellate court should review error in trial procedure to determine if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that reprosecution is barred where in the face of egregious prosecutorial misconduct it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received a fair trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that reprosecution is barred where in the face of egregious prosecutorial misconduct it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant received a fair trial
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: for a sentence of fifteen years in prison with ten years suspended and to be served on probation. After Marckman entered his plea, the court granted him a one-week furlough. The court informed Marckman that it would sentence him to thirty years as an HFO if he got arrested on a new charge while out on the furlough or failed to appear for sentencing. Marckman agreed to this additional term, and trial counsel amended his change of plea form accordingly. Marckman failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested for failure to appear and for a new charge. The trial court sentenced Marckman to thirty years in prison as an HFO with ten years suspended and to be served on probation. In ground four of his postconviction motion, Marckman argued that the trial cour d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Butler v. State, 764 So.2d 794, 795 (Fla. 2d Options: A. holding that an involuntary plea claim is cognizable in a rule 3850 motion B. holding that claim that plea was involuntary because the court failed to comply with rule 3172c was cognizable in a rule 3850 motion C. holding that rule 3850 motion was not time barred where the order did not place any time limitation on when the defendant would refile his rule 3850 motion D. holding that defendants 3850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the defendants current rule 3850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3850 motion E. holding defendant was not barred from raising sentencing issue in rule 3850 motion by virtue of prior rule 3850 motion which did not raise any sentencing issues

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an involuntary plea claim is cognizable in a rule 3850 motion
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: Shipper, Gatherer and CNNX agree and acknowledge that the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety and replaced and superseded by this Agreement effective for all purposes as of the Execution Date. CNNX hereby agrees and acknowledges that CNNX no longer has any interest in the Original Agreement and has no direct interest in, or rights and obligations under, this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when delivered in person or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, and addressed (i) to Fifer, at the address listed therefor on the books and records of the Company, or (ii) to the Company, at the address set forth therefor in the preamble, or to such other address as either Party may specify by notice to the other actually received.

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: All representations and warranties contained in this Agreement (as made as of its date) or contained in certificates (as of their respective dates) submitted pursuant hereto shall remain operative and in full force and effect and shall survive the Closing Date for a period of 18 months.

assistant: 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: The Company shall pay to Executive an annual base salary (“ Base Salary ”) of $200,000 in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures. The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”) shall review the Executive’s Base Salary no less than annually and may increase (but not decrease) such Base Salary during the Term.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default described in Sections 11.1(f) or 11.1(g) with respect to the Borrower, any unused Term Commitments shall automatically and immediately terminate and the unpaid principal amount of, and any and all accrued interest on, the Obligations and all accrued fees shall automatically become immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, or protest or other requirements of any kind (including, without limitation, valuation and appraisement, diligence, presentment, notice of intent to demand or accelerate and of acceleration), all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Borrower; and upon the occurrence and during the continuance of any other Event of Default, the Administrative Agent shall at the request, or may with the consent, of the Requisite Lenders, by written notice to the Borrower, (i) declare that any unused Term Commitments are terminated, whereupon any unused Term Commitments and the obligation of each Lender to make any Loan hereunder shall immediately terminate, and/or (ii) declare the unpaid principal amount of and any and all accrued and unpaid interest on the Obligations to be, and the same shall thereupon be, immediately due and payable, without presentment, demand, or protest or other requirements of any kind (including, without limitation, valuation and appraisement, diligence, presentment, notice of intent to demand or accelerate and of acceleration), all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Borrower.

assistant: Terminations
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: destroy the anti-modification provision of section 1322(b)(2). Thus, the Debtor may not modify the rights of Byline. The Debtor’s proposed plan is not confirmable. 2. Modification of the Stay Section 362 states that the automatic stay may be modified for property when the debtor does not have any equity in the property and the property is not necessary for reorganization. 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d). Both parties acknowledge that Debtor holds no equity in the property. The only question remains is whether the property is necessary for reorganization. In order to successfully demonstrate that a successful reorganization is possible, the Debtor must cure the arrearage owed to Byline and the Debtor has not done so in his proposed plan. See In re Stincic, 559 B.R. 890 (Bankr. W.D. Wis. 2016)(<HOLDING>) In this case, Debtor has not satisfied his Options: A. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies B. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default C. holding that debtor failed to satisfy burden of showing that property was necessary to any reorganization reasonably in prospect where debtor did not have the ability based on his earnings to cure his more than 56000 arrearage on mortgage debt even over the full term of 60month plan D. holding that for purpose of the means test debtor can deduct mortgage payment even though debtor will abandon property E. holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that debtor failed to satisfy burden of showing that property was necessary to any reorganization reasonably in prospect where debtor did not have the ability based on his earnings to cure his more than 56000 arrearage on mortgage debt even over the full term of 60month plan
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: we do not foreclose the possibility that under some circumstances an agency’s shifting of the policy goalpost (e.g., the evidentiary requirements for satisfying a particular statutory or regulatory standard) may lead us to conclude that the agency has acted arbitrarily or capriciously. See Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 742, 116 S.Ct. 1730, 135 L.Ed.2d 25 (1996) (noting that “[s]udden and unexplained change [in an agency’s position], or change that does not take account of legitimate reliance on prior interpretation, may be arbitrary, capricious [or] an abuse of discretion” (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hatch v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 654 F.2d 825, 834-35 (D.C.Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Pub. Serv. Co. of Ind., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Options: A. recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing B. holding that an agencys sudden shift in the nature of proof required of the regulated party was not sufficiently explained and necessitated remand C. holding that an agencys sudden unexplained shift in the kind of data that a regulated party was required to submit was arbitrary D. holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required E. holding that expert proof was not required for an asserted claim of ordinary negligence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an agencys sudden shift in the nature of proof required of the regulated party was not sufficiently explained and necessitated remand
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 question or dispute regarding the administration or interpretation of the Notice, the Plan, this Agreement or, if applicable, any Deferral Election Form pertaining to this Award, will be submitted by Grantee or by the Company to the Administrator. The resolution of the question or dispute by the Administrator will be final and binding on all persons.

assistant: Interpretations
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: take the position that the orders granting relief from the automatic stay entered on December 31, 1991, and March 3, 1992, took the property out of the estate before the property was administered, and therefore, the trustee did not administer the livestock or the proceeds of sale of the livestock. In other words, it is the position of the trustee and the United States that the orders for relief from the automatic stay actually transferred property from the estate to the debtor in the same manner as a formal abandonment. The following cases, all of which involve motions for relief from the automatic stay and do not directly involve motions to abandon, were cited by the United States and the trustee as authority for their position: In re Griggs, 82 B.R. 532, 533 (Bankr.W.D.Mo. 1988) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Bill Barry Enters., 822 F.2d 859, Options: A. recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate B. holding that once the automatic stay is lifted the property ceases to be property of the estate and there is no longer any power of abandonment C. holding that if property is not part of the individuals estate at the time he files a bankruptcy petition no automatic stay provision applies to the property D. holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover E. holding that the automatic stay terminates as to the debtor personally and as to his nonestate property but that the stay persists as to property of the bankruptcy estate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that once the automatic stay is lifted the property ceases to be property of the estate and there is no longer any power of abandonment
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: concurrently, and ordered Jebril to pay restitution. DISCUSSION I. The Prior Conviction USSG § 4A1.2(a)(l) defines “prior sentence” to mean “any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.” USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2) continues, stating, “Prior sentences imposed in unrelated cases are to be counted separately. Prior sentences imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence for purposes of’ a ntention, implying that [offenses] have been jointly planned, or at least that ... the commission of one would entail the commission of the other as well.” United States v. Irons, 196 F.3d 634, 638 (6th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Ali, 951 F.2d 827, 828 (7th Cir.1992)) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, crimes are not necessarily Options: A. holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes B. holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment C. holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes D. holding that separate instances of harassment committed against the same victim were not related because the defendant did not jointly plan the crimes E. holding that two robberies committed within hours of each other were not part of a common scheme or plan when the defendant did not originally plan to rob his second victim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that separate instances of harassment committed against the same victim were not related because the defendant did not jointly plan the crimes
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 notices, requests and demands to or upon a party hereto shall be in writing and sent in accordance with the Loan Agreement. Notice sent at least 10 Business Days before the date of any intended public sale or the date after which any private sale or other intended disposition of the Collateral is to be made by Lender shall be deemed to be reasonable notice of such sale or other disposition, provided that notice is hereby waived with respect to any of the Collateral which threatens to decline speedily in value or is of a type customarily sold on a recognized market.

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: This issuance of RSUs (and the shares underlying the RSUs) and Cash Award pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to, and shall comply with, any applicable requirements of any foreign and U.S. federal and state securities laws, rules and regulations (including, without limitation, the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the 1934 Act and in each case any respective rules and regulations promulgated thereunder) and any other law or regulation applicable thereto. The Company shall not be obligated to issue any shares deliverable pursuant to this Agreement if any such issuance would violate any such requirements.

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: Mont. 448], 597 P.2d 720 (1979); Conner v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 496 P.2d 770 (Okl.1972); McDonald Industries, Inc. v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 26 Wash.App. 376, 613 P.2d 800 (1980). See also Bonner County v. Panhandle Rodeo Ass’n. Inc., 101 Idaho 772, 620 P.2d 1102 (1980); Farmers Ins. Group v. Sessions, 100 Idaho 914, 607 P.2d 422 (1980). Hence, the courts have held that the burden is on the insurer to use clear and precise language if it wishes to restrict the scope of its coverage. Goforth v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 202 Kan. 413, 449 P.2d 477 (1969); Anderson v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 6 Kan.App.2d 163, 627 P.2d 344 (1981); Harvey’s Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. MacSween, 96 Nev. 215, 606 P.2d 1095 (1980); ... [See also ] Farmers Ins. Group v. Sessions, 100 Idaho 914, 607 P.2d 422 (1980) (<HOLDING>). (Emphasis added.) Accord, Cooling [v. U.S.F. Options: A. holding that an exclusionary clause in an insurance contract that lends itself to different interpretations is ambiguous and must be construed in a manner most favorably to the insured B. holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists C. holding that a contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations D. holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured E. holding that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be favorably construed to the insured

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an exclusionary clause in an insurance contract that lends itself to different interpretations is ambiguous and must be construed in a manner most favorably to the insured
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: stipulated facts in evidence in this adversary, include that the Debtor and Kristina Goldschein executed a security agreement (UCC-1) granting to the Benefit Plan a security interest in the New York Property on December 1, 1996, the same date as shown on the Deed of Trust and mortgage documents, which were the subject of the prior litigation discussed above. Further, it has been stipulated that the financing statement was not recorded in New York (thereby perfecting the security interest), until May 12, 1997. In the Discharge Adversary, this court held that the date of recordation or perfection is the date of transfer for purposes of measuring the one (1) year under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A). See also, Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. MacQuown (In Re MacQuown), 717 F.2d 859 (3rd Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In this Adversary Proceeding, the date of Options: A. holding the correct date to use when determining the controlling statute is date upon which the claim arose B. holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed C. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act D. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due E. holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the date of transfer should be measured by the date that the transfer was good as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or judgement holder which in accordance with applicable state law was the date of recordation as opposed to the date the deed was signed
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 No. 1 may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto in different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment No. 1 by facsimile or electronic mail shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment No. 1.

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: This Agreement shall become effective on the Closing Date and, subject to Section 1 2.8 , shall continue in full force and effect for so long as any Obligations remain outstanding or Lender has any obligation to make Credit Extensions under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lender shall have the right to terminate its obligation to make Credit Extensions under this Agreement immediately and without notice upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term or other provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced by any rule of applicable Law, or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or legal substance of the transactions is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party. Upon a determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the transactions contemplated hereby be consummated as originally contemplated to the fullest extent possible.

assistant: Severability