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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Trade Risk Guaranty, Inc., the company that issues ICP its customs bonds. See Conf. R. Annex A, Exs. 3, 4. While these affidavits are not relevant to the instant motion, they may be relevant to the underlying action. 11 Plaintiff makes several other arguments concerning injury it claims will be suffered, in the absence of an injunction, by (1) a related company’s manufacturing plant, see Raybuck Decl. ¶ .1 at 1, and (2) an unrelated purchaser of its merchandise, see id. ¶ 26 at 10. Because neither of these corporate entities is a party to this action, these arguments cannot be heard as proof of the irreparable harm facing ICP. See Heartland By-Products, Inc. v. United States, 23 CIT 754, 760, 74 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1331 (1999), rev’d on other grounds, 264 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). 12 ICP claims that Just on the entries of Options: A. holding that a party cannot demonstrate the presence or absence of irreparable harm based on the potential financial abilities of a nonparty B. holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm C. holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction D. holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm E. holding that a movant for a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a party cannot demonstrate the presence or absence of irreparable harm based on the potential financial abilities of a nonparty
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and each of the agreements executed in connection with this Agreement to which Parent or Company is a party has been duly executed and delivered by Parent or Company, as applicable. This Agreement and each of the agreements executed in connection with this Agreement to which Parent or Company is a party constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Parent or Company, as applicable, enforceable against Parent or Company, as applicable, in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that enforceability may be limited by (a) applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, receivership, moratorium and other similar Laws relating to or affecting the rights and remedies of creditors generally and (b) general principles of equity.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the District Court’s position. On May 7, 2016, the District Court held a conference call with counsel for the government, Ragnoli’s counsel, and a probation officer. Ragnoli was not present on the call, and no one objected to his absence. Later that day, the District Court issued a letter that read: Joseph Ragnoli’s sentence by this Court on April 25, 2013, to a 60-month term of confinement for violation of his supervised release is to run consecutive with his state term of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment. Nn. 3, 4. App. 58. Once Ragnoli learned of the District Court’s lettei’, he filed an appeal, which is presently before us. II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Ragnoli’s sentencing pursuant to 18 Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pineyro, 112 F.3d 43, 45 (2d Options: A. holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable B. holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders C. holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop D. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal E. holding that nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not reviewable orders

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not reviewable orders
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 any provision of this Agreement or portion thereof shall be held to be illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement or such provision shall remain in full force and effect. If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be excessively broad as to duration, geographical scope, activity or subject, such provision shall be construed by limiting or reducing it so as to be enforceable to the maximum extent compatible with applicable law.

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: Records of the Grantor, Nexeo, or any of their respective affiliates regarding your period of employment, termination of employment and the reason therefor, leaves of absence, re-employment, and other matters shall be conclusive for all purposes hereunder, unless determined by the aforementioned parties to be incorrect.

assistant: Records
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: we do our best to keep the community safe and secure ( athletes respecting the community guidelines helps ) , but you still might run into bad stuff before we have a chance to take it down .

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: on-time payment of commission by a supplier and the commission percentage are also included in the algorithm ; however , they are two of the several ( but definitely not leading ) factors in the default ranking .

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: if you access any third party website , service , or content from duolingo , you understand that these terms and conditions and our privacy policy do not apply to your use of such sites .

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: In the event that any provision of ther Agreement shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be enforceable in any other jurisdiction in which valid and enforceable and in any event the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “when the alien is released” from incarceration on the underlying offense. The text of the INA is clear: “The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who ... is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered ... when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.” INA § 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Interpreting this statutory language, this Court has repeatedly held that Congress intended mandatory detention to apply only to those aliens taken into immigration custody immediately after their release from state custody. See, e.g., Quezada-Bucio v. Ridge, 317 F.Supp.2d. 1221, 1228 (W.D.Wash.2004) (<HOLDING>); Pastor-Camarena v. Smith, 977 F.Supp. 1415, Options: A. holding that the special relationship exception must be confined to cases in which a person is taken into state custody against his will B. holding that the lower court should have entered a final order on custody C. holding that 8 cfr 100323b1 does not preclude motions to reopen filed by aliens who have been deported after the completion of immigration proceedings D. holding that the mandatory detention statute i na 236c does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody E. holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the mandatory detention statute i na 236c does not apply to aliens who have been taken into immigration custody several months or years after they have been released from state custody
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 assignment of this Agreement or Buyer's rights or obligations hereunder shall be made by Buyer without first having obtained Seller's written approval of any such assignment, which approval may be granted or withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of Seller. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer may assign this Agreement to a subsidiary of Buyer without the prior written consent of Seller. Buyer shall notify Seller of any such permitted assignment no later than three (3) Business Days prior to the Closing Date. Upon any such assignment, Buyer shall be fully released and discharged from any and all liabilities and obligations under this Agreement as of the Closing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The consummation of the purchase and sale of the Common Stock and the other transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the " Closing ") shall take place at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 300 North LaSalle, Chicago, Illinois 60654 on the date hereof (the " Closing Date "). At the Closing, the Company shall deliver to the Investor the book-entry interest representing that number of shares of Common Stock set forth in Section 2 in exchange for payment of the Purchase Price by wire transfer of immediately available funds to an account designated by the Company in advance 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: Except as set forth on Schedule 4.9 attached hereto and for debt servicing, the Company shall use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder for working capital purposes and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents, (b) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation or (c) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: bad character or propensity of the accused. See Wright v. State, 19 So.3d 277, 291-92 (Fla.2009) (“[C]ollateral-crime evidence, such as bad acts not included in the charged offenses, is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, but is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.”); see also Czubak, 570 So.2d at 928; Castro v. State, 547 So.2d 111, 114-15 (Fla.1989). In fact, this Court has consistently held that the erroneous admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence “is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt.” Robertson, 829 So.2d at 913-14 (quoting Castro, 547 So.2d at 115); see also Czubak, 570 So.2d at 928 (<HOLDING>). In addition, even assuming evidence that Options: A. holding that where court informed jurors that the defendant had escaped from custody the trial judge acted within his judicial capacity and did not testify B. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted C. holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder D. holding that collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful E. holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that collateral crime evidence that defendant was an escaped convict was presumptively harmful
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: because mental illnesses are categorized according to either their origins or symptoms, each party presented reasonable interpretations of the mental illness limitation where the policy was silent as to the proper classification. Accordingly, the district court held that the limitation is ambiguous, and applying the applicable state law doctrine of contra proferentem by construing the limitation against the drafter, it held that organically based illnesses do not fall within the limitation. As set out above, our sister circuits have reached differing conclusions regarding the ambiguity of a mental illness limitation that fails to provide whether an illness is classified as mental based on its origin or symptoms. Compare Patterson v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), and Phillips v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., Options: A. holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses B. holding that an insurance contract should be construed as a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood it and that if the language used in the policy is reasonably susceptible to different constructions it must be given the construction most favorable to the insured C. holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee D. holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor E. holding that criminal statutes of limitation should be construed in favor of the accused

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a mental illness limitation containing the exact language at issue in this case is ambiguous because it does not specify whether a disability is to be classified as mental by looking to the cause of the disability or to its symptoms and thus construed in favor of the insured does not encompass organically based illnesses
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: premises Coleman’s quiet title action on his contention that certain of the loan documents contain forged signatures. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 16.) Coleman does not dispute that he signed some documents at Fairway Financial, but he does dispute the validity of his signatures on the Balloon Note and TIL Disclosure Statement. (Doc. No. 46-1 at ¶¶ 6-7, 43.) Wells Fargo argues both that Coleman has, consistently with the evidence presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the validity of the signatures, and ictions for the proposition at least some quiet title actions are unburdened by a statute of limitations as long as the challenged cloud on the title persists. See, e.g., Bangerter v. Petty, 225 P.3d 874, 879 (Utah 2009) (<HOLDING>); Salazar v. Thomas, 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 186 Options: A. holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment B. holding that a plaintiff in possession of property may bring suit to quiet title against any or all tenantsincommon with competing claims C. recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud D. holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations E. holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership

assistant: The best answer is E. holding there is no statute of limitations on action to quiet title by landowner who was in continuous possession of property under claim of ownership
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 Section 2.1 through Section 2.2 (the “ Closing ”) shall take place remotely by the electronic exchange of documents or at the offices of Dechert LLP, 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, at 11:59 PM Eastern Time three (3) Business Days after the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in Article VIII (other than those conditions that by their terms are to be satisfied on the Closing Date) or at such other time and place as the EnTrust Contributor and the Permal Contributor may mutually agree (the date on which the Closing occurs, 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: From and after the Closing, each Seller agrees to refer to Purchaser all customer, supplier, employee or other inquiries or correspondence relating to the Company and the conduct of the Business after the Closing Date. From and after the Closing, each Seller further agrees to remit to Purchaser all payments and invoices received by him or it or his or its Affiliates that relate to the Company (including accounts receivable) or the conduct of the Business after the Closing Date within five (5) Business Days after his or its receipt thereof.

assistant: Payments
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: Directly or indirectly, use the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, or lend, contribute or otherwise make available such proceeds to any Subsidiary, joint venture partner or other individual or entity, to fund any activities of or business with any individual or entity, or in any Designated Jurisdiction, that, at the time of such funding, is the subject of Sanctions, or in any other manner, in each case, that will result in a violation by an individual or entity (including any individual or entity participating in the transaction, whether as Lender, Administrative Agent, L/C Issuer, Swing Line Lender, or otherwise) of Sanctions.

assistant: Sanctions
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: Desk Reference describes as an analgesia for treatment of mild to moderate pain, prescribed for relief from acute flairs of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. The ALJ observed that stronger medications could have been prescribed.”). Third, in allowing the conservative nature of one’s treatment as one of the factors a court may consider in determining a claimant’s credibility, we are in accord with several other courts of appeals that have held the same. See, e.g., Smith v. Colvin, 756 F.3d 621, 626 (8th Cir.2014) (noting with approval that the ALJ’s credibility determination was based, in part, on finding that the plaintiffs treatment was “essentially routine and/or conservative in nature”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1068-69 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Options: A. holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability B. holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled C. holding that allegations of several instances of flawed medical treatment state a claim under eighth amendment D. holding that a history of conservative medical treatment undermines allegations of disabling symptoms E. holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a history of conservative medical treatment undermines allegations of disabling symptoms
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you irrevocably consent to any and all acts or omissions by us or persons authorised by us that may infringe any moral right ( or analogous right ) in your user content .

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: You agree to keep strictly confidential the terms of this Agreement, except that you may disclose the terms of this Agreement to your immediate family, state and federal tax authorities, your attorneys, tax preparers, accountants or other professional advisers, as required by a court order, and to the extent necessary to file a claim for unemployment compensation benefits or enforce the terms of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at sentencing, “quick, temporary transfers do not violate the IAD.” Id. at 541-42 (citing Taylor v. United States, 504 U.S. 991, 112 S.Ct. 2982, 119 L.Ed.2d 599 (1992) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari)). Much of the legal foundation of the Taylor rule was abrogated by the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 121 S.Ct. 2079. In Bozeman, the Supreme Court held that “every prisoner arrival in the receiving state, whether followed by a very brief stay or a very long stay in the receiving state, triggers [Article] IV(e)’s ‘no return’ requirement.” 533 U.S. at 154, 121 S.Ct. 2079. The Supreme Court reasoned that the language of the IAD was absolute and militated against an implicit exception, even for de minimis violation 5 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 772 P.2d 1291, Options: A. holding the iad inapplicable to a prisoner at a temporary holding facility and noting that while there may be an occasional case in which a prisoner awaiting transfer is involved in rehabilitative programs offered at the local facility such rehabilitation efforts themselves ultimately would be disrupted by that prisoners transfer to his permanent correctional residence B. holding that because the stated purpose of the iad is to prevent interference with a prisoners rehabilitative environment there is no reason for the iad to apply to a prisoner until he or she is assigned to the institution where the sentence will be served C. holding the iad was not applicable to a prisoner who had been sentenced but was incarcerated in a local jail or holding facility while awaiting transfer to the assigned penal institution D. holding that iad is not applicable until a state lodges a detainer in the jurisdiction where the prisoner is incarcerated E. holding that a youth detention facility was a jail for purposes of statute requiring credit for time served in jail while awaiting trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the iad was not applicable to a prisoner who had been sentenced but was incarcerated in a local jail or holding facility while awaiting transfer to the assigned penal institution
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: W.Va. Code § 61-8D-4a must be interpreted alongside the common law “born alive” rule. According to the State, this Court previously adopted the “born alive” rule and argues that under this rule, it is “irrelevant that the harm was inflicted upon [Olivia Louk] a day before she was born.” The State argues that “the Court must find that a child injured prior to birth but born alive is a ‘child’ as defined in W.Va. Code § 61-8D-1(2), and may be a victim of parental neglect” pursuant to W.Va. Code § 61-8D-4. We disagree. This Court discussed the common law “bom alive” rule in State ex rel. Atkinson v. Wilson, 175 W.Va. 352, 332 S.E.2d 807 (1984). In Atkinson, the Court acknowledged that “a tort action for wrongful death could be brought on behalf of a viable unborn chil 885 P.2d 596 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Welch, 864 S.W.2d 280 Options: A. holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy B. holding a criminal charge of endangerment of a child does not apply to a pregnant woman who ingests an illegal substance that results in the transmission of drugs to her child through the umbilical cord C. holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child D. holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child E. holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a criminal charge of endangerment of a child does not apply to a pregnant woman who ingests an illegal substance that results in the transmission of drugs to her child through the umbilical cord
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: Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) (emphasis added); see also id. adviso document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business.” Timberlake, 71 F.3d at 342 (citing Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943); Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) advisory committee’s note); see also Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Sinkovich, 232 F.3d 200, 204 n. 2 (4th Cir.2000) (noting that documents “prepared in view of litigation[ ] are not admissible as business records under Rule 803(6) and illustrate ... that such documents prepared specifically for use in litigation are ‘dripping with motivations to misrepresent’ ”) (citing Hoffman v. Palmer, 129 F.2d 976, 991 (2d Cir.1942)); Noble v. Ala. Dep’t of Envtl. Mgmt., 872 F.2d 361, 366 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Upon a thorough review of the exhibits and Options: A. holding that not all of claims file was prepared in anticipation of litigation and noting that the majority of cases that have dealt with the issue of whether investigative materials prepared by insurance claims adjusters is workproduct prepared in anticipation of litigation have held that since insurance companies have a routine duty to investigate accidents such materials are not prepared in anticipation of litigation B. holding that court erred in admitting letter as business record where testimony was not adequate to establish that the letter was compiled as a matter of regular practice as opposed to one prepared in anticipation of litigation C. holding that court erred in admitting letters written in anticipation of litigation as business records D. holding that the workproduct doctrine was inapplicable where there was no indication a memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation E. holding that letters addressing dispute that was subject of litigation and that were written in anticipation of litigation did not fall under business record exception under rule 8036 of the federal rules of evidence and noting that it is wellestablished that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that court erred in admitting letter as business record where testimony was not adequate to establish that the letter was compiled as a matter of regular practice as opposed to one prepared in anticipation of litigation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any court determines that any provision of this Section 4 is invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Section 4 shall not thereby be affected and shall be given full effect, without regard to the invalid portion. In addition, if any court or arbitrator construes any portion of this Section 4 to be unenforceable because of the duration of such provision or the area covered thereby, such court shall have the power to reduce the duration or area of such provision and, in its reduced form, such provision shall then be enforceable and shall be enforced. This Section 4, as so amended, shall be valid and binding as though any invalid or unenforceable provision had not been included herein.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the district judge’s independent review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. But w ced, the efficient administration of justice is. Third, Hall asserts we should at least exercise plain error review of his issues. Hall refers to the Supreme Court’s directive in Thomas that default may be excused by a court of appeals “in the interests of justice,” 474 U.S. at 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, arguing the exception should be equated with plain error. Hall asserts other circuits have done so, but he does not mention this circuit’s precedent, e.g., United States v. Penny, 60 F.3d 1257, 1261 (7th Cir.1995) (“When a right is waived, it is not renewable, even for plain error.”) (citing Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-33, 113 S.Ct. 1770); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Nor does Hall explain why Options: A. holding that failure to object timely to a magistrates report operates as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrates decision B. holding that a magistrate judge acting pursuant to 636b1 has no authority to issue a dispositive ruling on a motion to certify a district court order for interlocutory appeal under 28 usc 1292b 2000 C. holding that a partys failure to raise objections to the report and recommendation waives the partys right to review in the district court D. holding the failure to file objections to a magistrates report issued pursuant to 28 usc 636b1 waives the right to appeal all issues both factual and legal E. holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the failure to file objections to a magistrates report issued pursuant to 28 usc 636b1 waives the right to appeal all issues both factual and legal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon termination of the Preferred Equity Member’s employment or appointment with the Company for any reason, title to and ownership of the Preferred Equity Unit shall immediately and automatically revert back to the Company and the Preferred Equity Member shall be entitled to receive payment for such Preferred Equity Unit in an amount equal to the then accrued and unpaid Preferred Distribution, if any. Preferred Equity Member shall not be entitled to any Preferred Equity Distribution with respect thereto following the termination.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications under this Agreement and any Terms Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if mailed or transmitted and confirmed by any standard form of communication, and (a) shall be sufficient in all respects if delivered or sent to: if to J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, to J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, 383 Madison Avenue, 7 th Floor, New York, New York 10179, to the attention of the Special Equities Group, Adam Rosenbluth (email adam.s.rosenbluth@jpmorgan.com) and Brett Chalmers (email brett.chalmers@jpmorgan.com); and if to HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., to HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Attention: Prospectus Department, 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, telephone: +1 (877) 429-7459, or by emailing: nyequity.syndicate@us.hsbc.com; (b) if to the Selling Stockholder, shall be sufficient in all respects if delivered or sent to the Selling Stockholder at the officers of the Selling Stockholder at 13135 South Dairy Ashford Road, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, to the attention of Legal Department (email: SRechter@noblecorp.com), with a copy to John D. Geddes at Baker Botts L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-4995 (email: john.geddes@bakerbotts.com); and (c) if to the Company, shall be sufficient in all respects if delivered or sent to the Company at the offices of the Company at 333 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, to the attention of the Chief Financial Officer (email kathleen_quirk@fmi.com), with a copy to Monique A. Cenac at Jones Walker LLP, 333 N. Central Avenue, 25th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (email mcenac@joneswalker.com). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Transaction Proposals shall be delivered by the Selling Stockholder to the Agents via e-mail in “.pdf” format to the applicable Agent as follows: if to J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, to Adam Rosenbluth (email: adam.s.rosenbluth@jpmorgan.com), Brett Chalmers (email: brett.chalmers@jpmorgan.com), Jemil Salih (email: jemil.d.salih@jpmorgan.com) and Ara Movsesian (email: ara.movsesian@jpmorgan.com), if to HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., to Jeffrey Nicklas (email: jeffreynicklas@us.hsbc.com); and Transaction Acceptances shall be delivered by the Agents to the Company via e-mail in “.pdf” format to: Kathleen L. Quirk (email: kathleen_quirk@fmi.com), with copies to Dionne M. Rousseau (email: drousseau@joneswalker.com) and Monique A. Cenac (email: mcenac@joneswalker.com).

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: to him in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. Caraway’s argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Fuller, 627 F.3d 499 (2d Cir.2010), where “we h[e]ld that SORNA applied upon its enactment to all sex offenders regardless of when convicted,” id. at 507. Because Caraway’s “travel and failure to register occurred after SORNA’s enactment and [its] effective date ... there is no ex post facto problem.” Id. at 508 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Caraway’s argument therefore fails. We have reviewed Caraway’s remaining arguments, including his constitutional challenges to SORNA contained in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit under our case law. See United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d 83, 89-91 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Venturella, 391 F.3d 120, Options: A. holding 13981 constitutional under the commerce clause B. holding that commerce clause did not provide congress with authority to enact civil remedy provision of violence against women act inasmuch as provision was not regulation of activity that substantially affected interstate commerce C. holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause D. holding that sornas registration requirements and criminal enforcement provision are proper under the commerce clause E. recognizing the extraordinary value of the vehicle title and registration records for law enforcement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sornas registration requirements and criminal enforcement provision are proper under the commerce clause
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: 370 U.S. 724 82 S.Ct. 1574 8 L.Ed.2d 801 Louis HARTMANv.UNITED STATES. No. 447, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1962 Lawrence Speiser, for petitioner. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Yeagley and George B. Searls, for the United States. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion for leave to supplement the petition for certiorari and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038; Silber v. United States, 368 U.S. 925, 82 S.Ct. 364, 7 L.Ed.2d 189. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 779, 781, 82 S.Ct. 1038. 3 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 3
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: Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (denying qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage because the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct depended on disputed facts to be determined by the jury). As for Plaintiffs claim of defamation, it is axiomatic that truth is an absolute defense to such a charge. Plaintiff was arrested and the arrest was allegedly published in the newspaper. The Newspaper reported that he had been arrested and listed the charges, which was true—he was arrested. Therefore, under state law no action for defamation can lie. See Columbia Sussex Corp., Inc. v. Hay, 627 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Ky. App. 1981) (listing elements of offense to include defamatory language); see also Bell v. Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co., 402 S.W.2d 84, 87 (Ky. App. 1966) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, this claim will not survive a Options: A. holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge B. holding that truth is a complete defense to defamation C. recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense D. holding that truth is a complete defense to an action for libel E. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that truth is a complete defense to an action for libel
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: otherwise time-barred proceedings when “a litigant’s failure to meet a legally mandated deadline unavoidably arose from circumstances beyond that litigant’s control.” Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, 209 F.3d 552, 560-61 (6th Cir.2000). “Although equitable tolling is used sparingly by federal courts,” this court does grant such relief in appropriate circum stances. Johnson v. Hudson, 421 Fed.Appx. 568, 571 (6th Cir.2011). “[A] petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling only if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Holland, 130 S.Ct. at 2562 (internal quotations omitted); see also Hall v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 662 F.3d 745, 749-50 (6th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether a petitioner meets Options: A. holding that denial of an independent chemical test after defendant refused to submit to a policeadministered test did not violate due process B. holding that jurisdiction exists if either the pluralitys test or kennedys test is met C. holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation D. holding that holland test did not subsume but replaced prior equitabletolling test from andrews v orr 851 f2d 146 151 6th cir1988 E. recognizing that other courts have found the type of test reliable but finding that this particular urinalysis test was unreliable since the lab did not perform a backup test or identify lab test results and state left questions about how probationers diabetes affected the results

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that holland test did not subsume but replaced prior equitabletolling test from andrews v orr 851 f2d 146 151 6th cir1988
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Transaction Documents constitute the sole and entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein and therein, and supersede all prior and contemporaneous understandings and agreements, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter in any way, including that certain (a) Letter of Intent, dated January 15, 2019, by and among Buyer and Sellers. In the event of any inconsistency between the statements in the body of this Agreement and those in the other Transaction Documents, the Schedules (other than an exception expressly set forth as such in the Disclosure Schedules), the statements in the body of this Agreement will control.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to being entitled to exercise all rights provided herein or granted by law, including recovery of damages, each of the Purchasers and the Company will be entitled to specific performance under the Transaction Documents. The parties agree that monetary damages may not be adequate compensation for any Loss incurred by reason of any breach of obligations contained in the Transaction Documents and hereby agrees to waive and not to assert in any action for specific performance of any such obligation the defense that a remedy at law would be adequate.

assistant: Remedies
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 possession of governmental agencies or public officials. Thus, under any common understanding of the words, we are not here dealing with “public money.” ¶ 37 Petitioners suggest, however, that because taxpayer money could enter the treasury if it were not excluded by way of the tax credit, the state effectively controls and exerts quasi-ownership over it. This expansive interpretation is fraught with problems. Indeed, under such reasoning all taxpayer income could be viewed as belonging to the state because it is subject to taxation by the legislature. That body has plenary power to set tax rates, categorize taxable income, and determine the type and amount of adjustments including deductions, exemptions, and credits. See Tanque Verde Enters., 142 Ariz. at 539-40, 691 P.2d at 305-06 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 38 Equally problematic is the fact that Options: A. recognizing the virtually unlimited authority of taxing bodies to set rates of taxation B. holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area C. holding that section 406b only governs a defendant service provider who was receiving agreedupon rates directly from a plan if that defendant had discretionary authority or control with respect to the rates agreed to by the plan sponsor D. holding that a carrier has a property interest in telecommunication rates and therefore is entitled to due process in the calculation of said rates E. recognizing a split of authority

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the virtually unlimited authority of taxing bodies to set rates of taxation