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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the Executive breaches or threatens to breach any provisions of Section 6 or this Section 7, then the Company will suffer irreparable harm and monetary damages would be inadequate to compensate the Company. Accordingly, in addition to any other rights which the Company may have, the Company shall (i) be entitled, without the posting of bond or other security, to seek injunctive relief to enforce the restrictions contained in such Sections and (ii) have the right to require the Executive to account for and pay over to the Company all compensation, profits, monies, accruals, increments and other benefits (collectively " Benefits ") derived or received by the Executive as a result of any transaction constituting a breach of any of the provisions of Sections 6 or 7, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

assistant: Enforcements
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 Credit Party and each Subsidiary thereof (a) has all Governmental Approvals required by any Applicable Law for it to conduct its business, each of which is in full force and effect, is final and not subject to review on appeal and is not the subject of any pending or, to its knowledge, threatened attack by direct or collateral proceeding, (b) is in compliance with each Governmental Approval applicable to it and in compliance with all other Applicable Laws relating to it or any of its respective properties and (c) has timely filed all material reports, documents and other materials required to be filed by it under all Applicable Laws with any Governmental Authority and has retained all material records and documents required to be retained by it under Applicable Law, except in each case of clauses (a) , (b) or (c) where the failure to have, comply or file could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: Accordingly, there is no reasonable probability that, had Dr. Eisenstein testified during the penalty phase or the Spencer hearing, the jury would have recommended or the trial court would have imposed a life sentence, and our confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase has not been undermined. Therefore, Turner has not satisfied the second prong of Strickland. In light of the foregoing, we hold that Turner’s trial counsel were not ineffective and affirm the postconviction court’s denial of relief on this claim. Death Penalty Challenges The remaining claims presented by Turner involve challenges to the death penalty in Florida. Each of these challenges is either waived, procedurally barred, meritless, or premature. See, e.g., Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178, 1182 n. 5 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>); Rigterink v. State, 66 So.3d 866, 897 Options: A. holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal B. holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of execution meth ods is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal C. holding that a similar claim in a rule 32 petition was procedurally barred because it was raised at trial and because it was raised on direct appeal D. holding that a habeas claim is procedurally barred where it was already raised on direct appeal and decided on the merits by this court E. holding that claims raised on direct appeal are procedurally barred from consideration in a rule 3850 motion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a caldwell claim is procedurally barred if it is not raised on direct appeal
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: (Weinstein, J.) (applying such a balancing test). It is in light of this background that we must address Ms. Bobkoski’s objection to the magistrate judge’s application of the deliberative process privilege. 1. Availability of Privilege to State Entity Ms. Bobkoski’s first argument is that Magistrate Judge Guzman erred by applying a federal privilege to a state entity. Because we believe there was no error, we reject this objection. The court in Moorhead v. Lane, 125 F.R.D. 680 (C.D.Ill.1989), applied the federal deliberative process privilege to an Illinois state agency. The court specifically held that it was “proper to recognize an executive predecisional deliberative process privilege for state agencies.” Id. at 686; see also N.O. v. Callahan, 110 F.R.D. 637, 642-43 (D.Mass.1986) (<HOLDING>). The Moorhead court reasoned that such a Options: A. recognizing privilege B. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications C. recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state D. holding that internal emails about how to present an agency decision to the public were covered by the deliberative process privilege E. holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Company terminates Executive’s employment during the Employment Period because of Executive’s Disability pursuant to Section 9(a)(ii)(A) , the Company shall pay to Executive (i) all Accrued Benefits, if any, to which Executive is entitled and (ii) Executive’s outstanding equity awards shall vest pro rata as of the Date of Termination based on the time Executive was employed during the applicable three (3)-year vesting period. Except as set forth herein, the Company shall have no further compensation obligations to Executive (or Executive’s legal representatives) under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the maximum extent permissible under applicable laws , the total liability of zynga and/or the zynga affiliates is limited to the total amount you have paid zynga and/or the zynga affiliate in the one hundred and eighty days ( 180 ) days immediately preceding the date on which you first assert any such claim .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: falls into the latter category: that of an employee with a non-limiting impairment incorrectly regarded as having an impairment that limited him in at least one major life activity. Specifically, Macfarlan claims that once he was cleared to work fulltime, Ivy Hill incorrectly regarded him, because of his lifting restrictions, as impaired in a manner that substantially limited him in the major life activity of “working.” A “temporary non-chronic impairment of short duration is not a disability covered by the [Acts].” Rinehimer, supra, 292 F.3d at 380. Macfarlan’s temporary lifting limitations, which were removed only four months after first imposed, are the very definition of such a non-chronic impairment. Accord Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 158 F.3d 635, 646 (2nd Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Because Macfarlan’s lifting restriction was Options: A. holding that an issue is abandoned when not raised in an appellate brief B. holding that an impairment lasting seven months was too brief in duration to qualify as an adaqualifying disability C. holding an argument made in plaintiffs reply brief but not in their opening brief waived D. holding an appellate brief may serve as a notice of appeal E. holding that episodic multiple sclerosis is categorized as an impairment that will consistently meet the definition of disability and a ministroke is categorized as an impairment that may be disabling for some individuals but not for others

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an impairment lasting seven months was too brief in duration to qualify as an adaqualifying disability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: as used in this agreement , references to a determination made in linden lab 's discretion means that the determination will be made by linden lab in accordance with its good faith business judgment .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Tenth Circuits also have concluded that a § 2255 motion filed after the reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal is not second or successive. See Shepeck v. United States, 150 F.3d 800, 801 (7th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (concluding that an order granting a § 2255 motion and reimposing sentence because counsel failed to file a direct appeal “resets to zero the counter of collateral attacks pursued”); United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (“[Bjecause of the unique situation presented when the granting of the prior [§ 2255] motion merely reinstated the right to a direct appeal, the first subsequent motion is not a second or successive motion under AEDPA.”); see also Vasquez v. Parrott, 318 F.3d 387 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The opposite conclusion has been reached by Options: A. holding that such claims required prisoner to obtain prefiling authorization to file second or successive habeas petition B. holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision C. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed D. holding that a 2255 petition seeking only reinstatement of the right to a direct appeal does not render any later petition a second or successive petition under the aedpa E. holding habeas petition was not second or successive where first petition did not attack conviction but alleged due process violation due to delay in adjudication of direct appeal in state court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding habeas petition was not second or successive where first petition did not attack conviction but alleged due process violation due to delay in adjudication of direct appeal in state court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: complaint, filed after the two-year statute of limitations for the claims which it contained.” Id. Thus, even though Williams’ § 1983 claim arises from the same incident as her tort claims, and even though her original complaint was filed within two years of that incident, her § 1983 was time-barred because the tort claims were not timely filed. Williams argues, however, that the defendants waived their limitations defense to all her claims by not asserting it in their answer to the second amended complaint or at any other time during the next twenty months. This argument of course is frivolous with respect to her § 1983 claim insofar as the defendants moved to dismiss that claim as soon as Williams amended her complaint to add it. See Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). That leaves only Williams’ contention that Options: A. holding that failure to plead affirmative defense to original complaint does not amount to waiver where defense is raised in response to amended complaint B. holding that the plaintiff waived an objection to the defendants failure to plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense C. holding that complaint need not anticipate statute of limitations which is an affirmative defense D. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations E. holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that failure to plead affirmative defense to original complaint does not amount to waiver where defense is raised in response to amended complaint
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: Opinion w . Having concluded that this Court has jurisdiction over this matter, this Court nevertheless notes that Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) sets forth certain limitations on the constitutional authority of bankruptcy courts to enter final orders. Therefore, this Court has a duty to constantly inquire into its constitutional authority to enter a final order for any matter brought before this Court. In the first instance, this Court concludes that its denial of the Application is not a final order because the denial is without prejudice to the refiling of another application seeking approval of the Firm that includes the information discussed in this Memorandum Opinion. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citing Anastasiadis v. S.S. Little John, 339 Options: A. holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court B. holding that a district courts dismissal that expressly grants leave to amend is not final and that a final judgment must be obtained before such a case becomes appealable C. holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order D. holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order E. holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final
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: 381 U.S. 420 85 S.Ct. 1571 14 L.Ed.2d 476 Walter R. HEARNE et al.v.Robert E. SMYLIE Governor of Idaho, et al. No. 617. Supreme Court of the United States June 1, 1965 Herman J. McDevitt, for appellants. Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen. of Idaho, and M. Allyn Dingel, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Williams and others, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The appeal in this case concerns an order of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho staying this reapportionment suit until 30 days after the adjournment of the 1965 Session of the Idaho Legislature. The Idaho Legislature, after adopting a new reapportionment plan, adjourned on March 25, 1965. The stay order now having expired by its own terms and the District Court and the parties now being in a position to proceed promptly with this litigation, the motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The authorized, issued and outstanding capital stock of the Corporation as of June 30, 2016 is as set forth in the Offering Memorandum under “Capitalization.” Other than pursuant to exercises of options to purchase equity securities of the Corporation and the grant of restricted share of the Corporation’s common stock under its equity compensation plans, there have not been any subsequent issuances of capital stock of the Corporation since June 30, 2016; and there has not been any additional long term (i.e., a maturity greater than one year) borrowings by the Corporation except pursuant to Federal Home Loan Bank advances to the Bank or securities sold under agreements to repurchase incurred by the Bank in the ordinary course of its business.

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

user: Except as required by law, neither PictureTel, Polycom nor their respective Representatives shall disclose to any person (including, without limitation, any director, officer or employee that is not set forth on Annex A) the existence, status or terms of any discussions, negotiations or agreements between them concerning a possible Transaction, including without limitation any offer, letter of intent, proposal, price, value or valuation, or any similar terms, agreements or understandings between PictureTel and Polycom with respect thereto, or that such party has provided to or received from the other Confidential Information, without obtaining the prior written consent of the other party.

assistant: Yes
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: is relevant to the instant case. Id., at 974-975. “Acceptance of the language for just what it says is dictated by the fundamental fairness of granting the accused equal access to his own words, no matter how the government came by them.” Id., (quoting United States v. Caldwell, 543 F.2d 1333, 1353 (D.C.Cir.1974)). Despite the opportunity afforded to it by the Court, the Government has not addressed Rule 16’s application to the Defendant’s Motion. “Ordinarily, a statement made by the defendant during the course of the investigation of the crime charged should be presumed to be subject to disclosure, unless it is clear that the statement cannot be relevant.” United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1114 (9th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Isa, 413 F.2d 244, 248 (7th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). The statements at issue are relevant. Not Options: A. holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need B. holding that threats made in the presence of a law enforcement officer were sufficient evidence to indicate an intent to communicate because the victim had a protective order against the defendant and the defendant had just violated that order C. holding that when a courts statements from the bench conflict with its written order the order controls D. holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order E. holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order
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 Board may grant Awards entitling recipients to acquire shares of Common Stock ("Restricted Stock"), subject to the right of the Company to repurchase all or part of such shares at their issue price or other stated or formula price from the recipient in the event that conditions specified by the Board in the applicable Award are not satisfied prior to the end of the applicable restriction period or periods established by the Board for such Award. Instead of granting Awards for Restricted Stock, the Board may grant Awards entitling the recipient to receive shares of Common Stock to be delivered at the time such shares of Common Stock vest ("Restricted Stock Units") (Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units are each referred to herein as a "Restricted Stock Award").

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: Except as may otherwise be provided herein, the restrictions on transfer set forth in Section 3 shall lapse in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Summary, so long as the Recipient is employed by or providing services to the Corporation as of the relevant dates.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that neither the Borrower nor any other Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an assignee in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.8.2 [ Assignments by Lenders ], (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.8.4 [ Participations ], or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of Section 11.8.5 [ Certain Pledges; Successors and Assigns Generally ] (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in Section 11.8.4 [ Participations ] and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No wai v er of any term or provision of this Employment Agreement will be valid unl e ss s uch waiver i s in writing signed b y the part y against whom enforcement of the waiver is sought . The waiver of any term or provision of this E mployment Agreement shall not apply to any subsequent breach of this Employment Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of Executive’s employment with the Company, the Company and Executive agree that any and all controversies, claims, or disputes with anyone (including the Company and any employee, officer, director, shareholder or benefit plan of the Company in their capacity as such or otherwise) arising out of, relating to, or resulting from Executive’s employment with the Company or the termination of Executive’s employment with the Company, including any breach of this Agreement, but not including those arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the PIAA, will be subject to binding arbitration. Disputes which Executive agrees to arbitrate, and thereby agrees to waive any right to a trial by jury, include any statutory claims under state or federal law, including, but not limited to, claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, discrimination or wrongful termination and any statutory claims. Executive further understands that this Agreement to arbitrate also applies to any disputes that the Company may have with Executive.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the procedures, as applied, are insufficient to afford due process. Doc. No. 13 at 15, 22 (arguing that the Echo Park Injunction “deprives [Plaintiff] of basic constitutionally protected freedoms” because “the post-deprivation remedies provided by the City are insufficient”) (emphasis added); see also Doc. No. 59 at 28 (“The pleadings the City relies upon confirm that the due process claim invoked [before the superior court] was against the issuance of. the injunction, not its individual application.”) (emphasis added). “[I]t is well-established that the facial upholding of a law does not prevent future as-applied challenges.” In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410, 430 (5th Cir. 2010); see, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 546 U.S. 410, 411-12, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO, Local Options: A. holding that the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 publ no 95598 92 stat 2549 precluded dismissal of cases pending before enactment of the reform act in order to refile under the act B. holding that the plaintiff could bring an asapplied challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act despite the court upholding the statute on its face C. holding that grandparents standing to bring suit under a custody statute was not a jurisdictional question that the court of appeals could raise on its own motion D. holding that the plaintiff could bring an action for negligent misrepresentation although the plaintiff could not sue on the contract because the contract was void E. holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff could bring an asapplied challenge to the bipartisan campaign reform act despite the court upholding the statute on its face
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: Both before and immediately after giving effect to the Transaction on the Effective Date and the incurrence of the Term Loans and all other indebtedness incurred or to be incurred on the Effective Date, there shall exist no Default or Event of Default.

assistant: No Defaults
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: she was qualified for the positions which became available in March and no circumstantial evidence indicating that Kelly Services’s failure to offer these positions to her was related to her jury service. Because three months passed between Boutwell’s jury service in December and the alleged failure to offer her an available position in March, the two events are not “proximate” and there is, therefore, no inference that the two events are connected. See Hatch, - So.3d at -, 2009 WL 1716967 at *5. Furthermore, although the evidence indicates that Kelly Services was aware of Boutwell’s service on a jury, this evidence alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that her service was the sole motivating factor in the decision to not offer one of the Yutaka positions to her. Id. at -, *6 (<HOLDING>). Evidence indicating that three months after Options: A. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action B. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation without evidence that the decisionmaker knew about plaintiffs protected activity when he made the decision that resulted in the adverse action C. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct D. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor E. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity
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: submitted in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Federal Defendants and Nebraska argue that this extra-record evidence is impermissible under the APA’s limitation on “the scope of judicial review.. .to the administrative record that was before the Secretary at the time that he or she made the decisions.” Fed. Defs.’ Mot. at 5 (citing Environmental Defense Fund v. Costie, 657 F.2d 275, 285 (D.C.Cir.1981). While it is true that “[a]s a general rule, plaintiffs may not supplant or supplement the administrative record,” Fed. Defs.’ Mot. at 6 (citing Peterson Farms I v. Madigan, 1992 WL 118370 (D.D.C.1992)), this Circuit has recognized that courts may consider extra-record evidence in its review of agency actions under certain circumstances. See Costle, 657 F.2d at 286. (<HOLDING>). The D.C. Circuit has also recognized that Options: A. holding that the proper inquiry for the categorical approach is whether the conduct covered by the crime presents the requisite risk of injury in the ordinary case B. holding that a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the compelling reasons standard C. holding appeal of termination is limited to information that is part of the record D. holding that in determining whether the defendant has a prior conviction for burglary under the armed career criminal act the federal court may look only to the terms of the charging document the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant or to some comparable judicial record of this information E. recognizing a judicial venture outside the record for background information or to determine the presence of the requisite fullness of the reasons given

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing a judicial venture outside the record for background information or to determine the presence of the requisite fullness of the reasons given
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: others similarly situated, and (2) “that such differential treatment was based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person.” Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 790 (2d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). In 2008 (after Judge Robinson’s opinion in this case), the Supreme Court held that “the class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply in the public employment context.” Engquist v. Or. Dept. of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 598, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 170 L.Ed.2d 975 (2008). Here, where plaintiff was a public employee challenging employment decisions, Engquist controls. See, e.g., Appel v. Spiridon, 531 F.3d 138, 139-40 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) While some courts within this Circuit have Options: A. holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability B. holding that the dominos decision only pertained to the contract clause of the statute and that a plaintiff asserting an equal benefits clause claim need not rely on a contractual relationship C. holding that neither the due process clause nor the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment require the appointment of counsel on a petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court D. holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability
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: (2) engaged in the “sale of counterfeit and infringing Louis Vuitton branded products within this Judicial District through multiple fully interactive commercial websites”; (3) purposefully directed illegal activities “towards consumers in ... Florida through the ... sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton branded goods into the State”; (4) was “selling and/or offering for sale counterfeit products, including at least handbags and wallets, using trademarks which are exact copies of the Louis Vuitton Marks”; and (5) was “actively ... advertising, distributing, selling ... substantial quantities” of these infringing goods in Florida and elsewhere. These allegations established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Mosseri. See Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). To shift the burden back to the plaintiff, a Options: A. holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review C. holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue D. holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 E. holding that the plaintiff alleged facts unrebutted by salem that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over salem

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiff alleged facts unrebutted by salem that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over salem
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 Agreement and each Guaranty Joinder Agreement, together with the Credit Agreement and other Loan Documents, constitutes and expresses the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, understandings, inducements, commitments or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, except as herein contained. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance or usage of the trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof. Except as provided in Section 21 , neither this Guaranty Agreement nor any Guaranty Joinder Agreement nor any portion or provision hereof or thereof may be changed, altered, modified, supplemented, discharged, canceled, terminated, or amended orally or in any manner other than as provided in the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each U.S. Loan Party shall reimburse and indemnify, within 30 days after receipt of demand therefor (with copy to the Administrative Agent), each Tax Indemnitee for all Indemnified Taxes (including any Indemnified Taxes imposed by any jurisdiction on amounts payable under this Section 2.17 ) paid or payable by such Tax Indemnitee whether or not such Indemnified Taxes were correctly or legally asserted. A certificate of such Tax Indemnitee (or of the Administrative Agent on behalf of such Tax Indemnitee) claiming any compensation under this clause (d) , setting forth the amounts to be paid thereunder and delivered to the relevant U.S. Loan Party with copy to the Administrative Agent, shall be conclusive, binding and final for all purposes, absent manifest error.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 Renewal Term shall be on all the terms and conditions of the Lease and with the same concessions ( e.g., free rent, tenant improvements and other lease inducements), in Comparable Buildings, as determined by Landlord in good faith and upon comparable lease transactions. The “Base Year” for purposes of calculating Operating Expenses for the Renewal Term shall be the actual Operating Expenses for the first year of the Renewal Term.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: stating its reasons for imposing the sentence it did, the district court did not state it was doing so for the purpose of making White eligible for any BOP treatment program. Furthermore, according to the government, Tapia made clear a sentencing “court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs.” 131 S.Ct. at 2392. Finally, the government argues this court should discount the district court’s inclusion of § 3553(a)(2)(D) in the list of factors it considered in deciding to vary upward from the advisory range because that reference came as part of a “formulaic recitation of the statutorily enumerated sentencing factors.” See United States v. Collins, 461 Fed-Appx. 807, 810 (10th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). The government’s arguments as to the absence Options: A. holding a sentencing court is not obligated to expressly weigh on the record each of the factors set out in 3553a B. holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances C. holding in similar circumstances that a formulaic recitation of the sentencing factor set out in 3553a2d supplies little indication that a court lengthened a sentence for rehabilitative purposes D. holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances E. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding in similar circumstances that a formulaic recitation of the sentencing factor set out in 3553a2d supplies little indication that a court lengthened a sentence for rehabilitative purposes
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 notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered in person or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the Executive at the last address the Executive has filed in writing with the Employer or, in the case of the Employer, at its main offices, attention of the Board, and shall be effective on the date of delivery in person or by courier or three (3) days after the date mailed.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The trial itself only lasted two days, and was followed by two telephone conferences and two in-person hearings. On the other hand, the City heavily litigated this case, particularly after it lost at trial, requiring the Church to respond in kind. The Court will bear these factors in mind, as well. C. Results Obtained A major dispute between the parties is whether and to what extent any fee award should be reduced or enhanced. After calculating the appropriate rate and number of hours worked, “the court has the opportunity to adjust the lodestar to account for other considerations that have not yet figured into the computation, the most important being the relation of the results obtained to the work done.” Dillard, 213 F.3d at 1353; see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (<HOLDING>). In rare or exceptional cases, like those Options: A. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal B. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith C. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived D. holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims E. holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success
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: attending therapy, See Bogan v. Bogan, 298 S.C. 139, 142, 378 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ct. App. 1989) ("The language used in a decree must be given its ordinary and commonly accepted meaning,”); id. ("Where an instrument evidences care in its preparation, it will be presumed its words were employed deliberately and with intention.’’); see also Hawkins v. Mullins, 359 S.C. 497, 503, 597 S.E.2d 897, 900 (Ct. App. 2004) (reversing the family court’s failure to find a mother in contempt for failing to produce the child for summer visitation, finding the mother’s claims regarding misunderstanding the family court’s orders were "disingenuous” and the mother had a history of interfering with the father’s visitations); cf. Ward v. Washington, 406 S.C. 249, 255, 750 S.E.2d 105, 109 (Ct. App. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as to any alleged inconsistencies Options: A. holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights B. holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process C. holding evidence supported finding mother could have reasonably misinterpreted the order therefore her actions of withholding visitation were not willful D. holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement E. holding that because the defendant could not have reasonably believed that the third person would have been justified in using force the trial courts finding of guilt was supported by substantial evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence supported finding mother could have reasonably misinterpreted the order therefore her actions of withholding visitation were not willful
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: beneficiary status, a contract need not afford a third-party the “direct right to compensation or the power to enforce that right against the promisor.” Glass v. United States, 258 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Montana v. United States, 124 F.3d 1269, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (same); Flexfab, L.L.C. v. United States, 424 F.3d 1254, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]hird-party beneficiary status is not reserved [solely] for those parties who benefit expressly under a given contract.”). Instead, third-party beneficiary status m n ‘exceptional privilege’ and, to avail oneself of this ... privilege, a party must ‘at least show that [the contract] was intended for his direct benefit.’” FDIC, 342 F.3d at 1319 (quoting Glass, 258 F.3d at 1354); see also Flexfab, 424 F.3d at 1259 (<HOLDING>). And, that privilege “should not be granted Options: A. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract B. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue C. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract D. holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary E. holding that employers have standing to sue

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract