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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is the product of negotiations among the Parties, and in the enforcement or interpretation hereof, is to be interpreted in a neutral manner, and any presumption with regard to interpretation for or against any Party by reason of that Party having drafted or caused to be drafted this Agreement, or any portion hereof, shall not be effective in regard to the interpretation hereof. The Parties were each represented by counsel during the negotiations, drafting, and execution of this Agreement.

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: evidence. Officer Tripp then took Baldon’s car keys and searched Baldon’s car. He discovered a large quantity of marijuana. After Tripp read Baldón his Miranda rights at the police station, Baldón confessed he had received the marijuana in satisfaction of a debt. The State charged Baldón with possession of a schedule I controlled substance with intent to deliver, second or subsequent offense, under Iowa Code sections 124.411 and 902.8 (2009) and possession of an amount of marijuana greater than 42.5 grams in violation of Iowa Code chapter 453B. Baldón moved to suppress the marijuana seized from the search of his vehicle under both the Iowa and Federal Constitutions. He claimed the entry into his motel room and vehicle violated the Search and S 31, 371 N.E.2d 794, 798 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Sullivan v. Bunting, 133 Ohio St.3d 31, 975 Options: A. holding parolees right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was unaffected by his signing of the consent to search provision B. holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court C. holding that forfeiture statute is subject to the fourth amendments prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures D. holding the parolees signature on parole agreement is not to be taken as an unrestricted consent to any and all searches whatsoever or as a blanket waiver of all constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures E. holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the parolees signature on parole agreement is not to be taken as an unrestricted consent to any and all searches whatsoever or as a blanket waiver of all constitutional rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures
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: does not apply. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that “a cause of action ‘arisfes] under an Act of Congress enacted’ after December 1, 1990 — and therefore is governed by § 1658’s 4-year statute of limitations-if the plaintiffs claim against the defendant was made possible by a post — 1990 enactment.” 541 U.S. at 382, 124 S.Ct. 1836 (alteration in original). This principle governs even if the new law amended a preexisting law; Congress often creates new causes of action by amending existing statutes, and § 1658(a) is not limited “to entirely new sections of the United States Code.” Id. at 381, 124 S.Ct. 1836. “What matters is the substantive effect of an enactment — the creation of new rights of action and corresponding liabilities — not the format in which it appears in t th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, USERRA established additional Options: A. holding in dicta that a jury trial is not available for claims under erisa B. holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials C. holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim D. holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b E. holding that claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed and delivered by facsimile, PDF signature or electronic signature and in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification. The trial judge admitted the passports, over Kea’s objection, holding that he did not accept the passports as official documents of the United States or a foreign government, but as notations concerning arrivals and departures. However, the notations of arrivals and departures were purportedly made by an agent of the Turkish government. The stamps should have been accompanied by a final certificate in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Evidence 902(3). See Overseas Trust Bank Ltd. v. Poon, 181 A.D.2d 762, 763, 581 N.Y.S.2d 92 (1992) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16. The passports should not have been Options: A. holding that upon remand if the trial court determined that the testimony in a newly discovered evidence claim was reliable the trial court must review that new evidence as well as brady claims that were previously rejected in a prior postconviction motion because the evidence was equally accessible to the defense and there was no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the evidence been disclosed B. holding that a passport is not competent evidence to prove the defendant was not in thailand absent proof by thai authorities that if the defendant had entered or exited thailand an entry would have been placed on his passport C. holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served D. holding that it was not error for the trial judge to refuse to admit the passport as evidence that defendant could not have been served with process in new york because she had been in hong kong the defendant offered no attestation or testimonial authentication by the hong kong authorities who had affixed the stamps on her passport E. holding that default judgment could not be rendered after the defendant had served plaintiff with a copy of a motion to dismiss that had not then been filed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it was not error for the trial judge to refuse to admit the passport as evidence that defendant could not have been served with process in new york because she had been in hong kong the defendant offered no attestation or testimonial authentication by the hong kong authorities who had affixed the stamps on her passport
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: in the event of a dispute about the contents or interpretation of these terms and conditions or inconsistency or discrepancy between the english version and any other language version of these terms and conditions , the english language version to the extent permitted by law shall apply , prevail and be conclusive .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: by creating a spotify support account , you confirm that any registration information that you submit to spotify is true , accurate , and complete and that you will update such information in order to keep it current .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ”) shall take place at FCRE’s offices at 60 Broad Street, 34th Floor, New York, NY, or such other location in Manhattan which is mutually agreeable to the Parties, on the date of the execution of this Agreement if the conditions to closing as set forth in Article V hereof have been met, or the first business day after the conditions to closing as set forth in Section 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 hereof have been met or waived by each of the Parties by notice to each of the other Parties hereto, time being of the essence (the “Closing Date”). The Parties and their representatives may participate in the Closing by electronic means and electronic delivery of signed documents. The Closing shall be deemed to occur as of midnight at the end of the Closing Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: SUBORDINATED LENDER, EACH OF THE CREDIT PARTIES AND SENIOR LENDERS HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY OF THE SUBORDINATED LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY OF THE SENIOR LOAN DOCUMENTS. SUBORDINATED LENDER, EACH OF THE CREDIT PARTIES AND SENIOR LENDERS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAIVER IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO ENTER INTO A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, THAT EACH HAS RELIED ON THE WAIVER IN ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE SENIOR LOAN DOCUMENTS AND THAT EACH WILL CONTINUE TO RELY ON THE WAIVER IN THEIR RELATED FUTURE DEALINGS. SUBORDINATED LENDER, EACH OF THE CREDIT PARTIES AND SENIOR LENDERS WARRANTS AND REPRESENTS THAT EACH HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF REVIEWING THIS JURY WAIVER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THAT EACH KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in addition , some services offered through the service may be subject to additional terms and conditions specified by vivino from time to time ; your use of such services is subject to those additional terms and conditions , which are incorporated into these terms of use by this reference .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (collectively, the “ Closing ”) will take place through the exchange of signature pages through electronic mail or otherwise on the second business day following the satisfaction or waiver of all conditions to the obligations of the Parties to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby (other than conditions with respect to actions the respective Parties will take at the Closing itself), or such other date and time as the Parties may mutually determine. The date and time of the Closing are referred to as the “ Closing Date ”.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the burden of proving the mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 939. “A trial court’s choice between ‘two permissible views of the evidence’ is the very essence of the clear error standard of review.” Id. at 945. The district court does not need to make specific subsidiary factual findings, and, as long as the record supports the decision and the district court resolves any disputed factual issues, a final determination is sufficient. Id. at 939-40. The burden is on the defendant to offer evidence at sentencing on an issue that would reduce his offense level, and if he fails to do so, and other evidence does not demonstrate entitlement, we will affirm the district court finding. See United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356-57 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, the district court Options: A. holding that where the defendant pleaded guilty subsequently denied his guilt and attempted to withdraw his plea and then attempted to minimize the significance of his statements at sentencing by averring that he accepted responsibility for the amount that me and the government have agreed to and offering a statement accepting responsibility were insufficient to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility B. holding that defendant was not entitled to reduction for acceptance of responsibility where he failed to fully account for the proceeds of his crime and attempted to delay a longscheduled hearing based on an incredible claim of innocence C. holding defendant failed to meet burden for acceptance of responsibility reduction where he objected in the psi but only made arguments at sentencing without offering evidence D. holding that factual findings set forth in the psi not objected to by a defendant are deemed admitted E. holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant failed to meet burden for acceptance of responsibility reduction where he objected in the psi but only made arguments at sentencing without offering evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: opportunity to correct the defect or upgrade the piping for the culvert that was growing increasingly susceptible to flooding; and that the City did not hire Screws or anyone else to correct the defect or upgrade and maintain the piping. I believe the testimony of Screws and Underwood on this issue constituted substantial- evidence, presented by experts, demonstrating that the City was derelict in responding to a known defective condition of the culvert. I am concerned, as well, that the courts have encouraged the City to continue ignoring known problems with the piping for the culvert and the drainage system; The reason Screws was unable to provide more evidence of causation is because the City never hired him to do the necessary Work to alleviate the flooding. If the a.Civ.App.2009) (<HOLDING>); cf. Royal Auto., Inc. v. City of Vestavia Options: A. holding that the trial courts written order was not the entry of a sentence sufficient to support a determination that a judgment of conviction was entered B. holding that because the trial court properly entered the summary judgment on the longs negligentmaintenance claim the trial courts disposal of the longs nuisance and trespass claims was also proper C. holding that a default judgment was not void because the bankruptcy court that entered the judgment had proper jurisdiction over the party seeking relief D. holding that when the trial court proceeded to consider affidavits submitted with motion to reconsider summary judgment the affidavits were properly before the appellate court for purposes of reviewing the propriety of the trial courts grant of summary judgment E. holding that the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of the health care provider

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that because the trial court properly entered the summary judgment on the longs negligentmaintenance claim the trial courts disposal of the longs nuisance and trespass claims was also proper
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: 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (Burger, C.J., concurring) ("[T]he Constitution provides no hint that either judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides should be so protected [through absolute immunity]. Absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors is seen to derive from the common law and public policy.... ”). And while "[flew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S.Ct 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967)), the same was not true for contempt or criminal liability, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (<HOLDING>); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503, 94 Options: A. holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under 1983 B. holding that state judges are absolutely immune from 1983 liability except when acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction C. holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony D. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims E. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as shown on Schedule 9.1.16 , there are no proceedings or investigations pending or, to any Borrower’s knowledge, threatened against any Borrower or Subsidiary, or any of their businesses, operations, Properties or condition (financial or otherwise), that (a) relate to any Loan Documents or transactions contemplated thereby; or (b) could reasonably be expected to be determined adversely to such Borrower or Subsidiary, and if so determined, to have a Material Adverse Effect. Except as shown on such Schedule or otherwise disclosed to the Administrative Agent in writing, no Obligor has a Commercial Tort Claim (other than, as long as no Default or Event of Default exists, a Commercial Tort Claim for less than U.S.$1,000,000). No Borrower or Subsidiary is in default with respect to any order, injunction or judgment of any Governmental Authority.

assistant: Litigations
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: 280, 283 (601 SE2d 771) (2004). And, pretermitting whether the limitation period for the other two claims of negligence was tolled until Shannon properly notified the Langleys of the dangerous condition of the animal and advised them accordingly, the uncontroverted evidence illustrates that the Langleys were notified that the kitten was likely rabid on February 25, 2002, at which time Shannon also euthanized the kitten and instructed the Langley family to consult their family physician. Any such claims were therefore required to have been filed within two years of February 25, 2002. See Oliver, 246 Ga. App. at 438-439. Since the Langleys’ complaint was not filed until February 26, 2004, it is barred as a matter of law. Hilea v. Colonial Stores, 135 Ga. App. 39 (216 SE2d 905) (1975) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the lower court’s grant of Options: A. recognizing the late date of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial B. holding actions filed one day late are barred C. holding that the respondents statelaw claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine D. holding that a motion court is compelled to dismiss late filed claims E. holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on a 3800c motion filed one day late

assistant: The best answer is B. holding actions filed one day late are barred
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: Subject to the limitations and other provisions of this Agreement, the representations and warranties contained herein and in the certificates delivered pursuant to Section 2.04(a)(iv) (with respect to Section 2.03(c)(i) ) and Section 2.04(b)(v) (with respect to Section 2.03(b)(i) ) shall each survive the Closing and shall remain in full force and effect until the date that is twelve (12) months from the date hereof, provided that (a) the Partnership Fundamental Representations, the Corporation Fundamental Representations, and the Purchaser Fundamental Representations contained herein and in the certificates delivered pursuant to Section 2.04(a)(iv) (with respect to Section 2.03(c)(i) ) and Section 2.04(b)(v) (with respect to Section 2.03(b)(i) ) shall each survive for a period ending upon the earlier of (i) the date upon which all of the Series A Preferred Units have been exchanged for Class A Common Stock or redeemed pursuant to the Partnership Agreement and (ii) the seventh (7 th ) anniversary of the date hereof and (b) the representations and warranties of the Partnership set forth in and Section 3.18 and the corresponding representations and warranties contained in the certificate delivered pursuant to Section 2.04(b)(v) (with respect to Section 2.03(b)(i) ) shall each survive until thirty (30) days after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any claims asserted in good faith with reasonable specificity (to the extent known at such time) and in writing by notice from the non-breaching party to the breaching party prior to the expiration date of the applicable survival period shall not thereafter be barred by the expiration of the relevant representation or warranty and such claims shall survive until finally resolved. All covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein shall survive the Closing until satisfied in accordance with their respective terms. The date upon which an Indemnified Person gives notice of a claim for indemnification (stating in reasonable detail the basis of such claim for indemnification) to the Indemnifying Person shall constitute the date upon which such claim for indemnification has been made for purposes of this Section 7.01 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and territorial courts). See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 392-95, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970)(concerning prosecutions by a State and political subdivisions of that State); Douglas v. Nixon, 459 F.2d 325, 326 (6th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 453, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972). The protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply until a defendant is put to trial before the trier of fact. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975); United States v. Gamble, 141 F.3d 621, 623 (6th C 2d 63 (1999). However, under certain circumstances, another prosecution may be allowed even after the defendant has been put to trial before a trier of fact. See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688-89, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949)(<HOLDING>). See also United States v. Love, 597 F.2d 81, Options: A. holding that the double jeopardy clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment B. holding that a judge is entitled to absolute immunity even if he takes an action that violates the double jeopardy clause C. holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court D. holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial E. holding inter alia that a search can be consented to even if a defendant to be advised that he is free to go

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the double jeopardy clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties of Seller and Buyer set forth in this Agreement are remade as of the Closing Date and shall not be deemed to be merged into or waived by the instruments of Closing and shall survive after the Closing Date for a period of twelve (12) months.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid or unenforceable, then the illegality, invalidity or unenforceability of that provision shall not impair or otherwise affect the legality, validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, and there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement a provision as similar in its terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid and enforceable.

assistant: Severability
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 representations and warranties of Buyer contained in this Agreement that are qualified as to materiality shall be true and correct, and all other representations and warranties of Buyer contained in this Agreement shall be true and correct except for breaches of, or inaccuracies in, such representations and warranties that, in the aggregate, would not have a material adverse effect on the expected benefits to Seller of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement taken as a whole, in each such case on and as of the Closing Date, with the same effect as though made on and as of the Closing Date, and there shall be delivered to Seller on the Closing Date a certificate, in form of Exhibit H attached hereto, executed by the Managing Memberof Buyer to that effect (the “ Buyer Officer’s Certificate ”).

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 jurisdiction and waiver of right to trial by jury provisions in Sections 15.18 and 15.19 of the Credit Agreement are incorporated herein by reference mutatis mutandis. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement and any of the parties hereto may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Amendment by facsimile or other electronic transmission (including “.pdf”, “.tif” or similar format) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: GE’s argument is belied by the facts as well. GE represented at both the motions hearing and in its brief that EPA achieves a near-perfect record of compliance with UAOs. See Tr. at 5; GE Mem. at 50-51. GE’s expert, Dr. Rouhani, however, suggests that EPA’s record reflects a modest rate of noncompliance. Of the 5,422 PRPs who were issued UAOs between 1982 and 2006 that he examined, there were 189 instances of PRPs not complying — a rate of 3.5 percent. See Rouhani Report at 6.52 & Table 8(a). And of the 1,638 PRPs who have been issued UAOs most recently, there were 75 instances of noncompliance — a rate of 4.6 percent. Id. at Table 8(b). These rates of noncompliance mirror the kind of “acceptable rate of error” tolerated by courts, see Shands v. Tull, 602 F.2d 1156, 1160 (3d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>), not the “remarkable record” of Options: A. holding that where the proper rate of interest was eight percent but the court ordered six percent movant had waived right to higher rate by not raising the issue earlier in its petition for review B. holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high C. holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation D. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient E. holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute
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: reported the financial health of the company and the percentage growth in diabetes product sales. There is no allegation that Sanofi failed to accurately report any of its financial figures. Courts in this district have held that “the allegation that a corporation properly reported income that is alleged to have been, in part, improperly obtained is insufficient to impose Section 10(b) liability.” In re Marsh, 501 F.Supp.2d at 470; see also In re FBR, 544 F.Supp.2d at 856 (“Accurate statements of past earning figures are not themselves actionable under Section 10(b).”); City of Brockton Ret. Sys. v. Avon Products, Inc., 11 cv 4665 (PGG), 2014 WL 4832821, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2014). But see In re Van der Moolen Holding N.V. Sec. Litig., 405 F.Supp.2d 388, 400-01 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>). Absent an allegation that Sanofi reported Options: A. holding that the creation drafting editing or making of the statements at issue can give rise to liability under 10b B. holding that statements which put the sources of the defendants revenue at issue gave rise to liability under section 10b because the company failed to disclose the improper conduct that generated that revenue C. holding that the fact that the company violated gaap when viewed in light of significant overstatements of revenue tended to support inference of scienter D. holding that a private plaintiff is not entitled to maintain an aiding and abetting action under 10b or rule 10b 5 E. holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct at issue in this action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that statements which put the sources of the defendants revenue at issue gave rise to liability under section 10b because the company failed to disclose the improper conduct that generated that revenue
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: Holder hereby (a) agrees that the Share [Options], and any other shares of capital share or securities required by the Agreement to be bound thereby, shall be bound by and subject to the terms of the Agreement and (b) adopts the Agreement with the same force and effect as if Holder were originally a party thereto.

assistant: 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: facts, testimony regarding those facts must be tested through confrontation. If the government thinks it necessary to prove nonstatutory aggravating factors, then it should be required to do so with the Confrontation Clause in tact. C. The Sixth Amendment’s Text Because Williams is inapplicable and no Supreme Court opinion is directly controlling, I turn to the Constitution’s text. The Confrontation Clause applies in “all criminal prosecutions.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “If ‘plain meaning’ is the criterion, this is an easy ease. Surely no one would contend that sentencing is not a part, and a vital one, of a ‘criminal prosecution.’ ” Wise, 976 F.2d at 407 (Arnold, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. Robertson v. United States, 417 F.2d 440, 447 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). This reading of the Sixth Amendment’s text Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause did not apply to proceedings before a draft board because such proceedings are not stages in a criminal prosecution B. holding that lyness does not apply to residency proceedings before school board C. holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings D. holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing E. holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the confrontation clause did not apply to proceedings before a draft board because such proceedings are not stages in a criminal prosecution
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: Marable when we explained that, “by the nature of the crime, the precise bounds of a single conspiracy seldom will be clear from the indictment.” Marable, 578 F.2d at 153. However, if the “judged on its face” language of Menna is read to restrict a defendant to his indictment for proof of a double jeopardy claim once he has pled guilty to the crime he is challenging, we will necessarily be requiring an indictment to serve a purpose for which it is, admittedly, frequently inadequate. We might be less concerned about this result if it did not have constitutional, as well as practical, implications. As it is, however, we simply cannot, on the strength of thi the government could “separate a single, ongoing conspiracy into discrete conspiracies by simply dividing the time frame”); Winship (<HOLDING>). Through the years, we have seen this freedom Options: A. holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion and thus the aljs unexplained conclusion was beyond meaningful review B. holding in the absence of alj findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence we cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the aljs conclusion C. recognizing that the government carved out a portion of a larger conspiracy and alleged it as a separate conspiracy D. recognizing that we cannot rest a conclusion of separate conspiracy personnel on the governments decision of who to charge in specific indictments E. holding that plea to multidefendant conspiracy charge bars defendant from denying his involvement from the date of commencement of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that we cannot rest a conclusion of separate conspiracy personnel on the governments decision of who to charge in specific indictments
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: on direct appeal when the district court did not entertain the claim or develop a factual record. United States v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir.2002). “If the record is sufficiently developed, however, [we] wdl consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.” Id. We review such a claim de novo. Id. We wdl not consider Wdliams’s first claim on direct appeal. However, given our earlier holding that there was no constructive amendment of the indictment where the district court instructed the jury to determine whether and to what extent Williams possessed with intent to distribute crystal methamphetamine, we reject Wdliams’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for fading to object on this ground. See Lucas v. Wainwright, 604 F.2d 373, 375 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). In light of the foregoing, Wdliams’s Options: A. holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction B. holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed C. holding that the prejudice prong of strickland was not met in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the prosecutors misstatement of law where the trial court properly instructed the jury D. holding where defendant challenged jury instruction and also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his counsels failure to object to instruction because we find no error in the instructions defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel must also be rejected E. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where jury has been properly instructed counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in this case, unrelated to any money claim pending before it, would effectively override Congress’s decision not to make the Declaratory Judgment Act applicable to the Court of Federal Claims. Nat’l Air Traffic Controllers Ass’n v. United States, 160 F.3d 714, 716-17 (Fed.Cir.1998); see also United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 131 S.Ct. 1723, 179 L.Ed.2d 723 (2011) (The United States Court of Federal Claims “has no general power to provide equitable relief against the Government or its officers.”). Moreover, in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a), this court can only provide declaratory or injunc-tive relief “as an incident of and collateral to” a judgment for money damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1492(a)(2); see also Taylor v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 171, 173 (2013) (<HOLDING>). For example, in a case brought under the Options: A. holding that contractual claim must be dismissed under the tucker act but other claims could go forward on remand B. holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases C. holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits D. holding that the tucker act does not provide a means by which the court of federal claims may grant injunctive or declaratory relief where the suit does not involve a preaward protest or the application of section 7428 of the internal revenue code E. holding that the tucker acts waiver does not extend to statutory claims

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases
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 financial statement, material report, material certificate or other material information furnished (whether in writing or orally) by or on behalf of any Credit Party or any Subsidiary thereof to the Lender in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished), taken together as a whole, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information, pro forma financial information, estimated financial information and other projected or estimated information, such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time (it being recognized that projections are not to be viewed as facts and that the actual results during the period or periods covered by such projections may vary from such projections).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The failure of any party hereto to exercise any right, power or remedy provided under this Agreement or otherwise available in respect of this Agreement at law or in equity, or to insist upon compliance by the other party with its obligation under this Agreement, and any custom or practice of the parties at variance with the terms of this Agreement, shall not constitute a waiver by such party of such party’s right to exercise any such or other right, power or remedy or to demand such compliance.

assistant: No 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: This Agreement, the other Loan Documents and any separate fee arrangement constitute the entire contract between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof. Any previous agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof is superseded by this Agreement and the other Loan Documents; provided that any letter agreement relating to the subject matter hereof between Borrower and a Lender shall remain effective in accordance with its terms. Nothing in this Agreement or in the other Loan Documents, expressed or implied, is intended to confer upon any party other than the parties hereto and thereto any rights, remedies, obligations or liabilities under or by reason of this Agreement or the other Loan Documents.

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: Without prejudice to the survival of any other agreement of the Loan Parties and the Lenders hereunder, the agreements and obligations of the Loan Parties and the Lenders contained in this Section 9.07 shall survive the termination of this Agreement, the termination of all Commitments, and the payment in full of the Advances and all other amounts payable under this Agreement.

assistant: Survival
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: or re-sentence because Rivera-Sanchez was convicted of only one crime. See Lynch v. United States, 364 F.2d 313,J 314 (9th Cir.1966) (affirming a conviction where the defendant was indicted and convicted of one count of bank robbery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) because the indictment was in one count and “[a]ny reference in the indictment and judgment to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d) does not constitute two separate and distinct offenses.”) (citing Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301, 305-06, 81 S.Ct. 653, 5 L.Ed.2d 670 (1961)). Furthermore, Rivera-Sanchez’s sentence already reflects that the punishment was for a violation of § 1326(a) as enhanced by § 1326(b)(2). Accordingly, we reject Rivera-Sanchez’s suggestion that we vacate the judgment and remand for Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the proper procedure under these Options: A. holding the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement where guns were found on the same premises from which the defendant trafficked drugs and were readily accessible to the defendant B. holding that evidence of the same rather unusual name that the former conviction was in same county and city as the present case where evidence showed defendant lived and that the character of offenses was the same was sufficient to establish identity C. holding that it was a clerical error readily correctable under frcrim p 36 where the judgment of conviction named a different subsection than that for which the defendant was charged and tried but where the penalties under those subsections were the same D. holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act E. holding that the court made a clerical error or was just guilty of creating ambiguous verbiage where it sentenced the defendant to parole under counts four and five instead of one and three and concluding that the answer is for the order to be corrected not vacated

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was a clerical error readily correctable under frcrim p 36 where the judgment of conviction named a different subsection than that for which the defendant was charged and tried but where the penalties under those subsections were the same