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 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. In the event that any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission, such signature shall create a valid binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) the same with the same force and effect as if such facsimile signature were the original thereof.

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: the structure of drug trafficking organizations and the role of drug couriers. Cira testified that a drug distributor would not have allowed the quantity of drugs in this case out of his control, and that, in his experience, he had never encountered a courier who did not know what was in his vehicle. Martinez never objected to the admission of Cira’s testimony in district court. Therefore, we review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Jones, 266 F.3d 804, 814 (8th Cir.2001). Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, Martinez contends admission of the testimony was error because he was not charged with conspiracy to import drugs and no evidence was presented to link him to an actual drug trafficking organization. See United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1012 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Martinez also contends admission of the Options: A. holding that expert testimony concerning the structure of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court B. holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case C. holding that the district court committed prejudicial error in admitting expert testimony about the structure of drug trafficking organizations because the testimony portrayed the defendant as a member of such an organization and implied the defendant knew the drugs were in his vehicle D. holding that expert testimony regarding the structure of drug trafficking organizations was inadmissible in a nonconspiracy importation case E. holding that the district court complied with the requirements of lb13alb where it made specific references to testimony in the record relating to the scope of the defendants involvement in the drug trafficking conspiracy noted that the relevant testimony was unrefuted and stated that the testimony was internally consistent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that expert testimony concerning the structure of drug trafficking organizations is inadmissible where the defendant is not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs or where such evidence is not otherwise probative of a matter properly before the court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: We find that the language of section 261.106 of the Texas Family Code unambiguously provides statutory immunity for certain persons who assist in the investigation of a report of alleged child abuse or neglect or who participate in a judicial proceeding arising from a report, petition or investigation of child abuse; however, we find no intent in the unambiguous language of this statute to abolish common-law derived judicial immunity. See Tex. Fam Code § 261.106. We conclude that the statutory privilege granted by section 261.106 serves a different purpose than derived judicial immunity and that the Legislature, by enacting this statute, did not intend to abolish derived judicial immunity. See Laub v. Pesikoff, 979 S.W.2d 686, 690 n. 2. (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule Barbara’s seventh Options: A. holding that section 261106 of the texas family code does not abolish or modify the absolute commonlaw judicialcommunications privilege because the statute serves different purposes B. holding that texas legislature has no police power to violate article i section 16 of the texas constitution because section 29 emphatically and unambiguously excepts this power from the powers of the government of the state of texas C. holding same for family code section 105001a5 D. holding that troxel opinion did not affect issue of grandparent standing because texas family code standing statute does not overrule parental presumption E. holding that section 21013 of the texas property code is a mandatory venue statute and is enforceable by mandamus

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that section 261106 of the texas family code does not abolish or modify the absolute commonlaw judicialcommunications privilege because the statute serves different purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: refer- ence to “manipulation of the system” was in necessary reference to Taylor’s judicial challenges. We have already pointed out that this attribution of intent is a conclusion, not a factual allegation. A trial court’s non-specific statement of admonition or criticism regarding a defendant’s behavior or conduct is not self-proving of retaliatory intent. Thus, to determine whether the first prong of the “evidentiary hearing” test is satisfied, we must explore Taylor’s Motion to locate contested factual allegations which, if proven, would warrant relief. In application, this principle requires the assertion of facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to assess the mei’-its of the underlying allegation. See, e.g., Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819, 823-24 (Mo. banc 2000) (<HOLDING>). To apply that principle here, we must first Options: A. holding that where movant alleged the names of uncalled witnesses and them anticipated testimony which would have been relevant mitigation evidence in the penalty phase but did not allege that trial counsel knew of the witnesses or that the witnesses were available to testify at trial the movant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction relief motion because he did not allege facts sufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to his claim B. holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence C. holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required on a postconviction motion because the movant did not allege facts sufficient to establish each of the necessary elements of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an allegation of failure to investigate and call witnesses D. holding the failure to call alibi witnesses promised during opening statement was not ineffective assistance of counsel E. holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required on a postconviction motion because the movant did not allege facts sufficient to establish each of the necessary elements of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an allegation of failure to investigate and call witnesses
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: 556 F.2d 1242, 1245 (5th Cir.1977); United States v. Davis, 546 F.2d 583, 594, 595 n. 31 (5th Cir.1977). The Fifth Circuit has noted that “[e]ven in eases where it was held that a Doyle problem resulted in reversible error, there has sometimes been reference made to the fact that error therein was not harmless because the evidence was not overwhelming.” Stone, 556 F.2d at 1245 (citing United States ex rel. Ross v. Fike, 534 F.2d 731, 734 (7th Cir.1976); United States v. Impson, 531 F.2d 274, 278-79 (5th Cir.1976)). ¶ 12. This Court has held that even errors involving a violation of an accused’s constitutional rights may be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the weight of the evidence against the accused is overwhelming. Kircher v. State, 753 So.2d 1017, 1027 (Miss.1999) (<HOLDING>). See also DeLoach v. State, 722 So.2d 512, 520 Options: A. holding harmless any error in admitting accuseds confession despite accuseds complaint that confession was given involuntarily B. holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature C. holding that question of whether a confession was coerced was not to be resolved by considering the truth or falsity of the confession D. holding that under elstad the first question that must be answered when determining whether a subsequent confession is tainted by an earlier confession is whether the initial confession was obtained in violation of the defendants fifth amendment rights ie whether it was involuntary or whether the confession was voluntary but obtained in technical violation of miranda E. holding that trial judges determination of the admissibility of a confession is based on whether the confession was voluntarily given

assistant: The best answer is A. holding harmless any error in admitting accuseds confession despite accuseds complaint that confession was given involuntarily
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 the benefits specifically described in this Agreement, the Executive shall be entitled to such benefits as may be available from time to time to executives of the Bank similarly situated to the Executive. All such benefits shall be awarded and administered in accordance with the Bank’s standard policies and practices. Such benefits may include, by way of example only, vacation pay, profit-sharing plans, retirement or investment funds, dental, health, life and disability insurance benefits and such other benefits as the Bank deems appropriate.

assistant: Benefits
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 of any equity restructuring (within the meaning of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation or any successor or replacement accounting standard) that causes the per share value of shares of Common Stock to change, such as a stock dividend, stock split, spinoff, rights offering or recapitalization through an extraordinary cash dividend, the number and class of securities available under this Plan, the terms of each outstanding option and SAR (including the number and class of securities subject to each outstanding option or SAR and the purchase price or base price per share), the terms of each outstanding Stock Award (including the number and class of securities subject thereto), the terms of each outstanding Performance Award (including the number and class of securities subject thereto, if applicable) shall be appropriately adjusted by the Committee, such adjustments to be made in the case of outstanding options and SARs in accordance with Section 409A of the Code. In the event of any other change in corporate capitalization, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization, or partial or complete liquidation of the Company, such equitable adjustments described in the foregoing sentence may be made as determined to be appropriate and equitable by the Committee to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights of participants. In either case, the decision of the Committee regarding any such adjustment shall be final, binding and conclusive.

assistant: Adjustments
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 same position with the same terms and conditions, but with Sundays and Tuesdays off, instead of Sundays and Mondays. As a general matter, a schedule change does not constitute the type of materially adverse action required to maintain a claim of employment discrimination. See, e.g., Griffin v. Potter, 356 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir.2004); Ruhling v. Tribune Co., No. CV 04-2430, 2007 WL 28283, at *10, (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2007) (“[A] schedule change standing alone does not constitute an adverse employment action.”). It is at least arguable, however, that the schedule change at issue here — which effectively eliminated plaintiffs two-day weekend — rises to the level of an adverse employment action. But see Williams v. Potter, No. 3:03 CV 1640, 2007 WL 247716, at * 4 (D.Conn. Jan. 29, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming, however, plaintiff could make Options: A. holding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion when he saw a vehicle moving with its lights off in the parking lot of a closed business in a rural area at 300 am B. holding that transfer involving no reduction in pay and only a minor change in working conditions does not rise to the level of a material adverse employment action C. holding a transfer or reassignment may rise to the level of an adverse employment condition if it is a significant change in working conditions D. holding that change in schedule from working 600 am to 230 pm with sundays and mondays off to working 730 am to 400 pm with sundays and tuesdays off did not constitute adverse employment action E. holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that change in schedule from working 600 am to 230 pm with sundays and mondays off to working 730 am to 400 pm with sundays and tuesdays off did not constitute adverse employment action
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: Employer shall employ Employee, and Employee shall serve, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for CBSI and CBNA for a term commencing on June 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2020 (“Period of Employment”), subject to termination as provided in paragraph 3 hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Hernandez-Castro, 473 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Barrero, 425 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.2005)). The district court properly considered Barrera’s prior conviction and his probationary status at the time of the instant offense in calculating his criminal history score. See supra Part II.A. This calculation must precede any departures that may be granted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(3)(B) based on overstated criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 501.2(a)(1). Barrera has more than two criminal history points; thus, he is ineligible for safety-valve relief. The district court could not have reduced Barrera’s criminal history score simply to make him eligible for safety-valve relief. Other circuits have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Hunt, 503 F.3d 34, 37 (1 st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Barrero, 425 F.3d at 157 (holding Options: A. holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure B. holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem to have a basis C. holding that the district court had the discretion to grant a downward departure for postsentence rehabilitation D. holding that the plain language of the guidelines precludes appellant from receiving the benefit of the safety valve regardless of whether the district court wanted to grant a downward departure because appellant had two criminal history points E. holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plain language of the guidelines precludes appellant from receiving the benefit of the safety valve regardless of whether the district court wanted to grant a downward departure because appellant had two criminal history points
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 acknowledge that yahoo may establish general practices and limits concerning use of the yahoo services , including without limitation the maximum number of days that email messages , message board postings or other uploaded content will be retained by the yahoo services , the maximum number of email messages that may be sent from or received by an account on the yahoo services , the maximum size of any email message that may be sent from or received by an account on the yahoo services , the maximum disk space that will be allotted on yahoo 's servers on your behalf , and the maximum number of times ( and the maximum duration for which ) you may access the yahoo services in a given period of time .

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: There are no actions, suits, proceedings or investigations pending or to the best of Borrower’s knowledge, threatened against or affecting Borrower or any Third Party Pledgor in any court or before any other Governmental Authority which would be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on the ability of Borrower to perform its obligations under the Loan Documents, on the Collateral or on the business of the Loan Parties (taken as a whole).

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: evidence to support the upward departure on the grounds articulated by the district court, and thus, the district court committed no error. As to the amount of departure, we give great deference to a district court’s determination of the amount of departure, as that court has the “superior feel for the case.” United States v. Otto, 64 F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir.1995). Kingston’s comparison of his case to factually incongruent cases does not support his assertion that an upward departure amounting to twice the guideline range is unreasonable. Given the number of permissible reasons for upward departure, we find that the sentence imposed by the district court was not unreasonable. II. Downward Departure. In his motion for downward departure, Kingston claims his payment to th Cir.2000) Options: A. holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant B. holding that a district court may depart upward based upon based criminal conduct when such conduct is not included in the computation of criminal history category C. holding that a court may depart upward based upon a third partys injury in an assault case D. holding that the district court must give parties notice of intent to depart E. recognizing that a defendant may appeal a district courts refusal to depart downward if the sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court misconstrued its authority to depart

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a district court may depart upward based upon a significant number of fraudulent schemes conducted by the defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that no Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder or under any other Loan Document without the prior written Consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an Eligible Assignee in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.06(b) , (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of subsection Section 10.06(d) , or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of Section 10.06(e) (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in subsection (d) of this Section 10.06 and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Credit Parties) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each payment of the Guaranteed Obligations will be subject to the provisions of Section 2.17 , mutatis mutandis with respect to all payments made by the Loan Parties of the applicable Guaranteed Obligations.

assistant: Taxes
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: Fernando Lozano-Santos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 895 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Santos’s motion to remand to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture where he did not submit applications for relief, see 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(c)(1); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), and failed to establish a prima facie case Options: A. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief B. holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the deadline for a motion to reopen where the petitioner waited 20 months to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when the petitioner presented a long list of newspaper articles and references to the state department country reports but failed to explain how these developments would affect the petitioner and demonstrate the individualized fear of persecution required for asylum D. holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief
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 execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by the Purchaser has been duly authorized by all requisite action, and this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Purchaser enforceable in accordance with its terms, except (a) as limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, and other laws of general application affecting enforcement of creditors’ rights generally, and (b) as limited by laws relating to the availability of specific performance, injunctive relief or other equitable remedies.

assistant: Authorizations
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: 9 . Tex Const, art. V, § 19 (1876) ("Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction ... in civil matters of all cases where the amount in controversy is two hundred dollars or less, exclusive of interest, of which exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to the District or County Courts ....”). 10 . Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 2460a, § 1 ("The justices of the peace in their several counties and precincts shall sit as judges of said courts and exercise the jurisdiction hereby conferred in all cases arising under the provisions of this Chapter.’’), now recodified as Tex. Gov’t Code § 28.002 ("Each justice of the peace sits as judge of the small claims court and exercises the jurisdiction provided by this chapter.”). 11 . Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 133, 41 S.W. 650, 655 (1897) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Act of May 27, 1953, 53rd Leg., R.S. ch. Options: A. holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter B. recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction C. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts D. recognizing that personal jurisdiction of federal courts of course may be grounded in state longarm or other jurisdiction statutes in civil rico cases E. holding that article v section 1 of the constitution amended in 1891 to state that the legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto permits the creation of new courts notwithstanding constitutional jurisdictional grants

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that article v section 1 of the constitution amended in 1891 to state that the legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto permits the creation of new courts notwithstanding constitutional jurisdictional grants
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: are designed for a single purpose, Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 750-51, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (Stevens, J., concurring in the judgment), because the “distinctive configuration of [such] co s the degree of privacy that a reasonable person may expect, but it does not eliminate it. If we allow police to open any single-purpose container they lawfully come across we would be authorizing exploratory searches of containers where a reasonable person would rightfully expect privacy: for example, police could open violin cases and guitar bags, look inside cereal boxes and bread baskets, or empty out clothes hampers and jewelry boxes without even a suspicion that these containers hold evidence of a crime. See, e.g., United States v. Donnes, 947 F.2d 1430, 1437 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Hicks was concerned with a statement of the Options: A. holding that arrest immediately out side of defendants house violated fourth amendment B. holding that arrest in backyard violated fourth amendment C. holding that police violated fourth amendment when they searched camera lens case that produced drugs D. holding in a 1983 case that city policy that authorized officers to detain people for nonarrestable offenses violated state law and therefore violated the fourth amendment E. holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police violated fourth amendment when they searched camera lens case that produced drugs
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: No. C-010206, 2001 WL 1386188. 53 . See Cincinnati v. Howard, 179 Ohio App.3d 60, 2008-Ohio-5502, 900 N.E.2d 689. 54 . State v. Krebs (Nov. 20, 1991), 1st Dist. No. C-910135, 1991 WL 243622. 55 . State v. Ussery (Mar. 4, 1987), 1st Dist. No. C-860108, 1987 WL 7422. 56 . State v. Bybee (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 395, 731 N.E.2d 232. 57 . State v. Paulo, 1st Dist. No. C-050725, 2006-Ohio-4035, 2006 WL 2241698. 58 . State v. John hio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278. 63 . R.C. 2925.03(D)(2) and 2967.01(0). 64 . Strattman v. Studt (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 95, 49 O.O.2d 428, 253 N.E.2d 749, paragraph six of the syllabus (quoted in Joseph at ¶ 20). 65 . Id. 66 . State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905, 843 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 15 (quoted in Joseph at ¶ 20). 67 . Joseph at ¶ 18. 68 . See Simpkins at ¶ 20 (<HOLDING>); Purdy, supra. 69 . See Hernandez v. Kelly, Options: A. holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals B. holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury C. holding that a trial court is not required to reimpose the original sentence but has discretion to impose a new sentence within the statutory limits governing the offense for which she was convicted D. holding that no court has the authority to substitute a different sentence for that which is required by law E. holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that no court has the authority to substitute a different sentence for that which is required by law
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: no authority to amend the concurrent jurisdiction that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600 gives to trial courts during the pendency of an appeal. If we did, it might be sensible to give the trial court an automatic thirty- or sixty-day period of concurrent jurisdiction to resolve any pending restitution issue once a notice of appeal is filed. In the alternative, perhaps the amount of restitution could be established in a separate restitution judgment, in the nature of a civil monetary judgment. This judgment could be separately appealed. Cf. Ulrich v. Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc., 764 So.2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (allowing separate final appeals of judgment and order awarding attorneys’ fees based upon judgment); Bernstein v. Berrin, 516 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). A sentence or disposition rendered at an Options: A. holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment B. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees C. holding that filing of appeal to federal circuit divests this court of jurisdiction to consider motion to stay court order pending appeal D. holding the court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal E. holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is A. holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of 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 Company and the Restricted Subsidiaries have timely filed all material Tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all material Taxes that are due and payable, except, with respect to payments, those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP (or, in the case of any Restricted Subsidiary organized in a non-U.S. jurisdiction, at its sole discretion, IFRS) and, in the case of returns and payments (without regard to materiality), those the failure of which as would not, individually or in the aggregate, be reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Taxes
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 Program and each Award shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any successor or successors of the Company and any person or persons who shall, upon the death of a Participant, acquire any rights under such Award in accordance with this Program or the Plan.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: entire arbitration provision because the PAGA waiver expressly forbids severance. 2013 Agreement § 14.3(v)(c). In any event, even if Uber’s structural argument offered a plausible construction of the Agreement (and the Court has considerable doubts on that point) it must ultimately be rejected. At best, Uber’s argument suggests there is some ambiguity in the otherwise crystal clear language of the contract that provides that the PAGA waiver is not severable. Because the 2013 Agreement is a standardized contract written by Uber, however, to the extent the language is ambiguous any ambiguity, must be “resolved against the drafter.” Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal.App. 4th 779, 798, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 273 (1998); see also Slottow v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 10 F.3d 1355, 1361 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Thus, the Court would Options: A. recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement B. recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired C. recognizing rule D. recognizing california law rule that ambiguities in a written instrument are resolved against the drafter E. holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing california law rule that ambiguities in a written instrument are resolved against the drafter
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: show that both crimes arose out of a common scheme or plan; but remoteness is less significant when the prior conduct is used to show intent, motive, knowledge, or lack of accident. State v. Hipps, 348 N.C. 377, 405, 501 S.E.2d 625, 642 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180, 143 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1999). Here, after hearing the State’s offer of proof and the arguments of counsel, the trial court ruled t here is no requirement that the crimes, wrongs, or acts occur prior to the charged offenses, only that they are “other” crimes, wrongs, or acts. Id. Further, the nearly two-and-a-half-year span between the offenses is not so long as to affect the admissibility of the evidence, but rather goes to the weight of the evidence. State v. Beckham, 145 N.C. App. 119, 122, 550 S.E.2d 231, 235 (2001) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Love, 152 N.C. App. 608, Options: A. holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred B. holding that proof of a continuous chain of custody is relevant only as to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence C. holding that the striking similarity between the acts alleged in the indictment and the prior incidents rendered incidents that occurred fifteen years prior to the acts alleged in the indictment relevant and admissible under rule 404b D. holding notice insufficient because it merely recited the language of the policys notice provision and provided no information regarding the types of practices alleged to constitute wrongful acts the agents officers or directors alleged to be involved in wrongdoing or the time period during which the allegedly wrongful acts took place E. holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility

assistant: The best answer is E. holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility
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: “implicates” Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant does not explain why the trial court’s ruling violated those rights. We decline to address defendant’s undeveloped constitutional claims and limit our discussion to the single constitutional argument that he made in his brief. See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879, cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (declining to reach undeveloped constitutional claims). 1 12 Given our disposition of defendant’s federal claim, we do not decide whether defendant may convert-what appears at bottom to be an unequal treatment claim against the state into a due process claim that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary. See Rock, 483 US at 62 (<HOLDING>). 13 The witness presumably meant to say that Options: A. recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense B. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony C. holding that absolute prohibition against hypnotically refreshed testimony arbitrarily infringed federal right to present defense D. holding that there is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal however once a state makes provisions for such bail it may not deny it arbitrarily or unreasonably E. holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that absolute prohibition against hypnotically refreshed testimony arbitrarily infringed federal right to present defense
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 for any failure to file or pay, collect or remit that could not reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect, each Credit Party has (i) timely filed or caused to be timely filed all Tax Returns required to have been filed by it and all such Tax Returns are true and correct in all material respects and (ii) duly and timely paid, collected or remitted or caused to be duly and timely paid, collected or remitted all Taxes (whether or not shown on any Tax Return) due and payable, collectible or remittable by it (including in its capacity as a withholding agent), except Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the applicable Credit Party has set aside on its books adequate reserves in accordance with GAAP.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ■ included equipment and items other Than inventory. And the total monies paid by Travelers included cleaning expenses, building loss, business-personal-property. damages, and business-interruption damages., Payments were also made for fence repair, trailer rentals, and air-conditioning work. Wise' Electric asked Shipp if he knew that AHC had received $2.7 million from its insurer, and Shipp responded, “[T]he exact number, I didn’t know, but it was over $2 million.” The number $2,578,067.00 was not mentioned at trial except when Wise Electric read the settlement agreement as it moved to admit it. We recognize that an insurance policy may provide contractual, .first-priority, dollar-for-dollar subrogation rights. See, e.g., Fortis Benefits v. Cantu, 234 S.W.3d 642, 648 (Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>); Hartnett, 870 S.W.2d at 167, (construing Options: A. holding that recovery from the tortfeasors insurer is a condition precedent to a claim for uim benefits B. holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss C. holding subrogation clause that granted insurer a right of recovery against any and all thirdparty settlements authorized insurer to recoup firstpriority dollarfordollar recovery from plaintiffs settlement D. holding that recovery is limited to the portion of the medicaid recipients thirdparty recovery representing compensation for past medical expenses E. holding that there is no right of recovery against individual defendants under the ada

assistant: The best answer is C. holding subrogation clause that granted insurer a right of recovery against any and all thirdparty settlements authorized insurer to recoup firstpriority dollarfordollar recovery from plaintiffs settlement
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: 515, 107 L.Ed.2d 516 (1989). Moreover, “it is axiomatic that the proof required to show that a defendant knowingly associated with an existing conspiracy ‘need not be overwhelming.’ ” Viola, 35 F.3d at 44 (citation omitted). Indeed, participation in the conspiracy can be shown entirely through circumstantial evidence. Id. We find that the Complaint states a valid § 1962(d) claim against Ortoli. Specifically, although Ortoli was not an operator or manager of the RICO enterprise, we find that the facts alleged evidence his knowing association with the Madanes Brothers’ conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff. The Court is satisfied that Ortoli’s alleged actions — ranging from the restructuring of family assets, to drafting paperwork intend p, Inc., 847 F.Supp. 588, 601-02 (N.D.Ill.1994) (<HOLDING>). Baltimore is likewise liable under § 1962(d). Options: A. holding that although plaintiffs failed to state 1962c claim against outside attorneys for directing principals in rico enterprise to sign various legal documents allegations that these same outside attorneys knowingly agreed with promoter of tax shelter to violate rico and personally agreed to commit racketeering acts stated valid cause of action for conspiracy under 1962d B. holding that although plaintiffs failed to adequately allege 1962c claim against professional broker and its officer based on operating or managing enterprise they adequately alleged rico conspiracy to violate 1962a against same defendants C. holding that to state a 1962a claim plaintiff must allege that the defendants received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and invested it in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of a rico enterprise D. holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico E. holding that the person charged with violating 1962c must be distinct from the rico enterprise

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that although plaintiffs failed to adequately allege 1962c claim against professional broker and its officer based on operating or managing enterprise they adequately alleged rico conspiracy to violate 1962a against same defendants